All We Are Saying Is Give Appeasement a Chance!

Before You Argue the Point, Know Your Bible First

______

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

This is not a religious post. 

But if conservatives – whom, by every measure available, already give more money to charity than our socially-conscious, deeply-caring liberal brethren (*cough*) – contributed a mere dime apiece to favorite charities for every leftist counter-argument they heard based on either pure emotion or hackneyed talking points, there would not be a single homeless, hungry, or shoeless human being in all the land. There might even be enough coin left over to wipe out a few diseases and have every alley cat in Brooklyn spayed or neutered.

Since the Paris terrorist attacks, among those who actually admit that Islamists were responsible, debate has been hot and heavy in all media corners regarding exactly what the Koran actually says and means. What does it endorse? Are these kinds of barbaric acts really acceptable to Allah? And what of all the barbarity in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles? How can we criticize the Koran when the Old Testament, in particular, is rife with such brutal and vulgar displays?

Often quoted by atheists and religious skeptics, considered to be the benchmark example of primitive justice, cruelty and incivility in the Bible is Exodus 23-25:

 “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,  Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,  Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

The famous “eye for an eye” verse…

 

After all, to a civilized, sophisticated culture, what could be more barbarous than the idea of cutting out someone’s eye as a dispersal of justice? The concept – and the belief in a God that would issue such an edict – is as primordial as giving up your seat for a woman on the subway, or wishing someone a Merry Christmas without being absolutely sure of their own religious leanings.

How many times have we heard this nugget, attributed to Gandhi: “An eye for an eye simply makes the whole world blind.”

Adorable. That's right up there with "War Is Not the Answer." Indeed, war isn't the answer ...if the question is, "What is the square root of 116?"

But that’s not what it means. That’s not what it has ever meant. But as is the wont of the emotions-first, bumper-sticker-lovin' left, the jerking knee does so in a reflex of emotion and ignorance, not honesty or historical context.  One does not have to be a believer to understand what the aforementioned Bible verse is meant to convey;  And if there were intellectual honesty on the left, regardless of one’s religious belief, one would see that the verse is not primitive, in the least. In fact, it can be looked at as a great step forward - a progressive step, if you will – in the history of jurisprudence.

Never in human history were members of the so-called lower classes – peasants, indentured servants, etc - considered to be on an equal level in any way as those in the royal or ruling classes. Contrary to the tiresome and uninspired “every god is just an angry, cruel, vicious man in the sky” arguments, the Bible actually invents a hardcore liberal value: equality. 

The verse establishes that everyone’s “eye” or “hand” is equal, regardless of economic and social status. A rich man’s eye was no more valuable on the scales of justice than a poor man’s eye.  

That concept is a big deal.

It creates equality in law – something that the left should adore as much as windmills. Thus, if an eye is taken, one could not seek two eyes as a form of just punishment.  This is true equality that transcends class – something the left is really big on.

The “eye for eye” concept simply cannot be taken literally, because it could never be executed consistently or justly (save for the idea of a life for a life, which I will touch upon in a moment). In fact, one cannot cite a single example of that kind of literal justice being metered out in the Bible anywhere. It just is not possible to reserve and carry out justice in punishment to that which could literally replicate the crime – as much as many of us would love to see it done in certain instances. 

Besides, equivalent physical damage could never be exacted in this way during that time period. There were no top flight medical facilities thousands of years ago. Antibiotics were still millennia away. Scooping out an eye could literally lead to death – and by definition, that would be contrary to the rule. One would think God is wise enough to understand this.

Additionally, if we take the verse literally, could a blind person escape justice with no working eyes to extract?

The exception here is the justice of a life for a life – that one who murders the innocent (and the word “murder” is key here) shall not be able to keep his or her own life. This law appears in each of the first five books of the Bible, known to Jews as the Torah. It is the only law to appear in each the Torah’s five books. To take an innocent life by way of murder means that the murderer no longer has the right to keep his or her own life.

And how do we know this is to be taken literally, whereas the “eye for an eye” verses are not?

The Bible actually states that one cannot ransom a human life (Psalm 49:8) – meaning that no amount of bartering, bargaining or deal making can ever be made as to make the loss of that murdered life "even." There is no provision, however, prohibiting the ransom of a body part such as an “eye” or a “hand.”

I would be willing to guarantee that most on the left have never even heard these arguments based not only on the biblical text itself, but on centuries and centuries of scholarly examination and discussion. 

To the left, the phrase “eye for an eye” sounds so awful, so unevolved, so close-minded … thus those who are repulsed by the idea of a transcendent creator making the rules have ammunition – albeit in the form of intellectually inane bullets – to shoot down religion in the name of civility and reason. 

The problem is: I’ve heard this argument come from so-called moderate Muslims as proof that all faiths have their questionable doctrines to wrestle with.

Well, to be fair.... indeed, they do (the word "Israel" literally means "struggle with God") … but “eye for eye” is not one of them. 

Try again.

_________________

Muslim woman Escapes Jail by Remaining Behind her Burqa

Muslim woman Carnita Matthews escapes jail by remaining behind her burqa

Proving once again that it's not the crime that gets you, so much as the cover up!

UPDATE 5.31pm: THE woman at the centre of the burqa row, Carnita Matthews, has a long record of driving offences and a history of not paying her fines.

Court documents have revealed that she had been fined seven times for traffic infringements before she was stopped by police in June last year for not displaying her P-plates in the incident that sparked the row that spilled over to the District Court in NSW yesterday.

Since she first received her learner licence in 1998 at the age of 33, she has twice had her provisional licence suspended for totting up too many demerit points and twice had her licence suspended for non payment of fines.

The State Debt Recovery Office had to recover the fines. Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted.

It is not known how many times she was physically stopped by police and whether she had her face covered by a burqa or a niqab on those occasions.

And like the woman in Florida who did not want to remove her burqa for her driver's license photo, this incident also illustrates the insanity of such a position.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

Here's a thought...if your religious principles mean that much to you, ride the bus. Call a cab. Sometimes, sticking up for one's principles involves personal sacrifice.

You have the right to practice your religion. You do not have the right to drive a car. (At least not without a photo ID.) It is a privilege established by state law and subject to state regulations.
You can't have it both ways. I believe that Islam holds that Jesus was a prophet. He said, "Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."

Driver's license and registration? Those be Caesar's.

Update: Mark Steyn's take.

Update II:This may be a good time to re-introduce the Proof Positive Travel Burka?

Update III:My take on burkas as getaway outfits from 2007

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.

Smart Is As Smart Does As Smart Says - Bam Says Israel Is Suspicious Of Him Because Of His Middle Name

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

____________________________ 

I deviate from much of my conservative brethren on the matter of Barack Obama’s intelligence. While we concur that the President’s big-government, Marxist-friendly agenda is steadily destroying the country as we know it, I find myself in the minority regarding the man’s astuteness and aptitude.

Despite his transformative approach (i.e., his America-wrecking leftism), it has become conventional wisdom that Barack Obama is, unquestionably, a sharp and sagacious man.

He is an intellectual, a scholar - at least that's what we’ve been told time and time again.

And even if we disagree with him - even if our dissent is resounding and unwavering - we must grant that he is remarkably precocious.

If I had a dollar for each time I’ve been apprised of the President's supposed mental dexterity, how clever he really is – including from the majority of pundits and wordsmiths on my side of the aisle – I’d have enough cash to get this country operating in the black. (Absolutely no pun intended there, Sheila Jackson Lee).

I don’t buy it.

Not for a moment.

Barack Hussein Obama is a dulcet-toned sponge swollen with leftist rhetoric, knee-jerk anti-capitalist blather, and university-cultivated hyperbole. He is a man who hasn’t a clue about much of anything beyond the campus brain-clutter that keeps his political base (somewhat) satisfied and his teleprompter in business.

He is a polished appetizer-platter of meaningless Vietnam-era clichés. He is a messiah in a world contrived in his mind that neither asked for nor needs him.

His responses to critical questions reveal a man who is in over his head - a man spinning his wheels in campaign-mode mud - without the ability to be particularly thoughtful or substantive.

He is a man who has contempt for liberty and rugged individualism.

He almost always sounds foolish.

And America continues to pay the price.

No, dear friends, he isn't brilliant.

Rather, he's ignorant and way out of his league.

And I assure you, I don't mean this as an insult. I don't write it for the shock value. It's meant as an honest description.

How else to explain Barack Obama’s appraisal of how the nation of Israel views him? How else to explain how unpopular he is with Israelis?

The fact is: President Obama is disliked in Israel. “Hope and Change” just hasn’t caught on in the little nation by the Mediterranean.

But that's okay.

The President has it figured out.

Barack Obama has tapped into his legendary well of cerebral prowess, summoning his ability to survey complicated situations – taking a page from his own Bammy's Handbook of Critical Thought and Assessment - and has come up with the reason why they Israelis don't adore him (like they should).

According to the President, the reason for his disfavor may be rooted in his middle name, Hussein.

From Haaretz:

During (an) interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."

"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.

"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.

If only his middle name were Bill or Moshe, Israel would have already renamed the city of Haifa for him ... because the anxiety Israelis feel with Bam in the White House has nothing to do with his actions.

Right?

*cough*

If ever there was a more disconnected, out-of-touch, misguided man at the helm of the free world, I am not aware of it.

Does the President realize how painfully naïve - and frankly, dumb … he sounds? This is the brilliant metrosexual from Chicago? This is the new-age, post-racial, post-political intellectual that dazzled so many people during the campaign season two years ago? Does the President truly believe his unpopularity in Israel is about his name? Is that the depth of his analysis as to why Israelis are suspicious of him?

It certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the President has hung one of America’s closest allies out to dry since taking office, could it?

It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the only democracy in that region – a nation where Arabs and Jews leave peacefully together – has seen her closest friend break several security commitments, turn a cold shoulder to her, and embrace those who exist to see her destroyed, would it?

It wouldn’t have anything to do with Obama’s apologetic demeanor toward terrorist thugs, would it?

It wouldn’t have anything to do with the President’s willingness to sit down and try to negotiate with those terrorists whose very existence is hinged on not only Israel’s destruction, but America's, would it?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that in his book Audacity Of Hope, Obama wrote: "'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," would it?

It couldn't have anything to do with President Obama’s propensity to bow to foreign heads of state, could it?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that President Obama considers the location of the construction of some Jewish homes a far more important matter – a greater impediment to peace – than the notion that there are entire nations who vow to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth? 

It wouldn't have anything to do with the President's twisted infatuation with creating moral equivelancy, would it?

So, this is about his name?

My Lord, what on God’s green earth is President Obama talking about?

Is it possible for anyone to disagree with President Obama without being labeled as bigoted in some way? Or racist? Or whatever “phobic” he wishes to label his detractors with? Is it necessary for everything to be filtered through the Barack Obama prism? Is everything about Barack Obama?

And why is it that Barack Obama continues to insist that the Middle East "problem" is a complicated one?

It isn't.

The conflict is very simple.

Israel wishes to exist. Her enemies want her destroyed.

Next.

And while the solution is difficult - precisely because one side refuses to accept the very existence of the other - the problem is simple to grasp ... or it should be.

Even for intellectually vapid messiahs.

Submission

By Lady Cincinnatus

"A mosque at Ground Zero. We think it symbolizes our "tolerance". They think it symbolizes our submission. Either way, the two most important sites of 9/11 - the scene of the greatest atrocity and the scene of the only good news of the day - will honor neither the victims nor American heroism." ~Mark Steyn

Crescent of Embrace 9/11 Flight 93 Crash Memorial

New U.S. Defense Logo

New Nuclear Security Summit Logo

Cross posted at Lady Cincinnatus