 Almost every time I tune in to the show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU), there is some kind of grotesque and pathetically cheap leftist message being perpetuated. Recently, as most of us know, the show had a character verbalize a connection between a psychotic murder and the fans of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. The connection, naturally, is that these three individuals are “a cancer spreading ignorance and hate.” The other day another episode I watched launched a ferocious attack on a religion and, surprise, surprise, it wasn’t Islam. The producers didn’t take the road less traveled.
You know, the one on which you confront the real dangers facing us but risk attracting lawsuits and death threats and, well, you know, putting your job and life at stake and stuff like that.
Why bother doing all that when you can just dip into the trendy liberal moral sewer and attack the Catholic Church — with no consequences to your own career and personal well-being? The Catholic Church is so evil, you see, that absolutely nothing will happen to you after you attack it. In this particular episode, a Catholic priest molests boys and the Church covers it all up. The script offers a politically correct delicacy in which the seal of confession is portrayed as a vile rule created by horrid men for the purpose of institutionalizing abuse and tyranny.
There are no complexities, nothing to be said about the sacredness and importance of a priest having the obligation of keeping a confessed sin a secret. It’s all just so simple and, of course, evil. Suffice it to say that the subject of this show is a reality in terms of the abuse of young boys by certain Catholic priests and its subsequent cover-up. These crimes have been investigated, exposed, and punished. And they should continue to be investigated, exposed, and punished. So as the topic for a show on television, it’s clearly warranted and legitimate. To continue reading this article, click here. FPM
 By JAMES HOOKWAY and CELINE FERNANDEZ KUALA LUMPUR :If a Malaysian High Court ruling stands, Roman Catholics here can resume using the word "Allah" as their translation for God in their local language. The court on New Year's Eve overturned a three-year-old government ban that prevented the Catholic Church from using the term Allah in its literature.
The Arabic word has been used by various faiths in this Muslim-majority nation for centuries, and the church argues that it is the only suitable way to denote God in the Malay language. Other options, such as "Tuhan," or Lord, aren't as appropriate, says Rev. Lawrence Andrew, the editor of the church's Herald newspaper. He called Judge Lau Bee Lan's decision a landmark ruling that upholds constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. But some people fear the ruling is only the first round in what they see as a longer campaign by a broad spectrum of Muslims to make this religiously diverse, resource-rich nation more Islamic.
Prosecutors could file an appeal as soon as Monday, and Islamic activists already are demanding the ruling be overturned. A government spokesman couldn't be reached to comment. The linguistic dispute over the word Allah comes amid a flurry of other controversies that have convinced many Malaysians that their country is adopting an increasingly politicized interpretation of Islam. Some analysts fear it could eventually turn off international investors. In recent months, a Muslim Shariah court sentenced a woman who ordered a beer in a hotel bar to be caned, while a group of Muslim men desecrated the proposed location of a Hindu temple near Kuala Lumpur by tossing a severed cow's head onto the site as police stood aside. The increasingly religious bent of Malaysia's authorities contrasts sharply with the country's reputation as a holdout for moderation in the Islamic world.
Malaysia's diverse makeup -- around 60% of Malaysia's 27 million people are ethnic-Malay Muslims, while the rest are mostly ethnic-Chinese and Indians -- has encouraged trade and investment. For a while, the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur were the tallest buildings in the world, and the country hosts a large technology industry in addition to sprawling palm oil plantations and natural-gas reserves. The character of the country has changed, however. As Islam emerged as a political force across the Muslim world, Malaysian leaders encouraged the spread of Shariah courts and a Muslim-dominated bureaucracy. The ruling, however, adds to signs that some Malaysians may be ready to push back against the Islamist tide, or at least act to prevent it from becoming more powerful, observers say. In an interview in November, Prime Minister Najib Razak said the government would resist efforts by Islamist hard-liners to turn Malaysia into a more-radical Islamic nation. "We are going to maintain what we are today -- a moderate Muslim state," Mr. Najib said. The Herald newspaper filed a lawsuit against the government's ban on it using the word Allah in 2007. Malaysian authorities were concerned that the word would confuse or mislead Muslims, and that the term should be reserved exclusively for Islam. The ban hindered the Malay-language edition of the Herald, which is read mostly by indigenous tribes who converted to Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. It added to the grievances of Malaysia's religious minorities, who complain they are discriminated against by the Muslim-dominated government -- a claim the government denies. The ban on Christians using the word Allah was imposed before Mr. Najib became prime minister, and some observers suggest he might not want to pursue the case in order to help improve religious relations.
The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, a key member of an opposition coalition, already has urged its followers to respect the court's verdict. Muslim activists have grown more powerful, however, and the government may be unable to resist pressure to appeal the Allah ruling, observers say. WSJ 
 One of Germany’s most senior Catholic leaders, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, criticized on Sunday what he described as restrictions on Christians in Islamic nations. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, Meisner, who is archbishop of Cologne, charged that this led to “an aversion against Muslims” among Germans. The often outspoken cleric said he had been campaigning for the past two years for the Church of St Paul in Tarsus, Turkey to be permanently opened for worship by any Christian. The Turkish government which treats the early medieval church at Paul’s birthplace as a museum granted access to Christian groups from mid 2008 to mid 2009 to use it, but restrictions are back in force. “It’s a battle that is pointless. And then you get the feeling, this just is not right. And that is one of the reasons for all this aversion towards our Muslim fellow citizens,” Meisner said. via German Catholic leader criticizes Islamic treatment of Christians : Religion General. Despite the term (“aversion) which I think is somewhat over the edge (looks as if Europeans had something personal against Muslims), he is right in pointing out the problem: the extreme differences (and absolutely unjustified ones) between the situation of Muslims in Europe and that of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. Thanks to Tea and Politics
 Jim Hoft America’s worst president attacked Catholics and Southern Baptists for the abuse of women in a speech he gave in Australia. He even blamed these traditional religious groups for female genital mutilation. Lifesite News reported: In an address to a gathering sponsored by the World Parliament of Religions (PWR) last Friday, former US President Jimmy Carter has once again blamed traditional religion, particularly Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, for “creating an environment where violations against women are justified.” …In opposition to the vast majority of authentic scholars and historians, Carter asserted: “It’s clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets.” He added: “It wasn’t until the 4th century or the 3rd at the earliest that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant position within the religious hierarchy.” Contrary to the theorizing of Carter, Pope John Paul II taught, “The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.” He added: “the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 1577) Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they “view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men.”
However, both Christian faiths hold to the Scriptural truth that God created men and women equal. “Their continuing choice provides a foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world,” said Carter.
Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery. Responding to Carter’s nearly identical points in July, John Paul Meenan, Professor of Theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy in Barry’s Bay, Ontario characterized Carter’s points as “ridiculous,” noting that there was no evidence of the ordination of women in the early Church. Last I checked it was the Muslims who performed female genital mutilation.
But, Jimmy Carter would never have the guts to single out Muslims like that.
With thanks to Gateway Pundit
 David Sapsted, Foreign Correspondent LONDON: The British government’s plan to make at least one year’s sex education compulsory for all schoolchildren is facing a legal challenge from the country’s largest Muslim organisation.
Roman Catholics, too, are considering a high court challenge to government proposals to introduce a new, national curriculum course for all children aged between five and 16 in two years’ time.
Under the new plans, the lessons would be compulsory for all 15-year-olds, meaning that each child would have at least one year of sex education, including detailed instruction on contraception and about homosexuality. At present, parents can choose to have their children opt out of all sex education lessons throughout their primary and secondary school education.
But, under the new plans, parents would be treated as encouraging truancy and liable to heavy fines if they took their child out of sex education classes between the ages of 15 and 19. The earliest a child can leave school in the UK is 16, with the majority leaving at 18. Additionally, the new national curriculum – starting at the age of five, when children will be taught the differences between boys and girls – replaces the much more lax current rule that only requires each school to have its own policy on sex education.
Until now, many schools, including most faith schools, have chosen that policy to be not to have sex education at all. The only current legal requirement is for children to be taught the biological facts of reproduction, which is normally done in science classes. Read more here,,,, Source: The National
 BARNEY ZWARTZ A SENIOR Melbourne Muslim is proposing a sharia court to handle disputes in the Muslim community, suggesting it might eventually form part of the state's legal structure. Islamic Council of Victoria board member Hyder Gulam was due to meet a senior bureaucrat in the Premier's Department on Thursday to discuss the idea, but the meeting was postponed to this week. Mr Gulam, a lawyer with Logie-Smith Lanyon and also a board member of Australian Red Cross, said a sharia court could function as a voluntary and non-binding dispute resolution mechanism in matters such as divorce, access to children, disputes over wills and financial or commercial disputes. ''We are talking about a system that defuses community tensions before they reach litigation, so it can be settled at the lowest level, as quickly as possible, as cost-effectively as possible, with the best outcome. The Victorian Government is very keen on community dispute resolution mechanisms,'' he said. ''These are ideas we've raised with senior members of the community for three months, and the response has been very supportive because people see it's a cheap way to deal with intra-community disputes.'' However, the Islamic Council of Victoria has rejected the idea, because of concerns about the negative impact of the word ''sharia''. The leading Muslim women's group also rejected it. On Friday a deeply concerned council vice-president Sherene Hassan learnt of it from The Age and held urgent phone conversations with other board members.
She said: ''Sharia courts are not on the organisation's agenda. There has been no pressure for them from the Muslim community, and we have not discussed them. The meeting with the Premier's Department this week will go ahead, but it will not discuss sharia courts.'' Ms Hassan said Mr Gulam was acting on his own initiative and the council's agenda would not be set by one individual. Mr Gulam discusses the possibility of an Australian sharia court in an article co-written with barrister Simon Lee in an Australian Muslim newspaper, the Crescent Times. Saying their aim is to stimulate debate, they conclude the only element of sharia law feasible in Australia is dispute resolution based on mediation and conciliation. Meanwhile, Mr Gulam has received support and advice from the Fitzroy Legal Service on securing government support. Executive officer Rob Inglis said a sharia court ''would fill a really important need and would be a win-win situation''. It would not diminish existing law, but help create a ''safer, more culturally inclusive space'' for Muslims in legal matters. Mr Gulam said the Jewish community had the Beth Din, Catholics had religious courts to settle marriage questions, and indigenous people had the Koori courts, which were part of the state legal system. Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said research showed women and children would be ''extremely disadvantaged'' by any sort of sharia court. ''It's grossly naive to say women can opt out from such a tribunal. Women are often not in a position to make this sort of decision.'' She said examples from Britain showed women not only felt pressured, they became caught between the tribunal and the laws of the state. ''There's no sound argument to establish such a tribunal. Muslims are bound to live by the laws of the state they are members of. They can't opt in and out, according to their convenience.'' Source: The Age
 By Simon Caldwell
The Roman Catholic Church has severely criticised a proposed new code of conduct for teachers which it says will force Christian schools to actively promote Islam and gay rights.
The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has warned the General Teaching Council, by the professional regulatory body, that many teachers will quit the profession because they will not be able to accept the revised code of conduct in good conscience.
It would not be possible for a person of faith to promote another faith: Oonagh Stannard with Education Secretary Ed Balls
Their advisers say the code would also seriously undermine the religious character of church schools by imposing on them a hostile form of secular morality.
The legally-binding code would discriminate against Christian teachers in recruitment and in the classroom, they say.
Principle 4 of the code demands that teachers ‘proactively challenge discrimination’ and ‘promote equality and value diversity in all their professional relationships and interactions’ before they can be registered.
It means that campaigners can complain if teachers fail to observe the new demands and that teachers and schools can be punished if a complaint is upheld.
Oona Stannard, head of the Catholic Education Service, an agency of the bishops’ conference, told the GTC in a written submission that ‘there was an understandable fear that the call to “proactively challenge discrimination” could be used to oppose faith schools per se, and the rights that they have in law, for example, to select leaders who are of the faith’.
‘This anxiety extends similarly to the direction to “promote equality”,’ Miss Stannard said.
‘It would be unacceptable to expect anyone to be required to promote something contrary to their own faith beliefs and, indeed, it would not be possible for a person of faith to promote another faith – this is a matter of conscience.’
Miss Stannard added that there were grave concerns in the Church over the question of whether Catholic teachers would in good conscience feel able to register under the new code.
This means they would either quit the profession or would be dissuaded from entering in the first place, heightening the recruitment crisis already afflicting many schools.
The code proposed by the GTC would be binding on all schools, including the 2,300 primary and secondary schools run by the Catholic Church and the 4,660 run by the Church of England.
The GTC is insisting that all teachers will have to sign up to the new code before they can practice.
The code will then be used by the GTC to assess cases of serious misconduct by teachers and trainee teachers.
However, it will also be used by school governing bodies and local authorities in recruitment and disciplining of teachers; universities in assessing candidates for teacher training and by employment tribunals assessing claims of unfair dismissal.
Many Christians already fear that equality and diversity rules are being used against them.
Caroline Petrie, a nurse, was suspended by North Somerset Primary Care Trust, for failing to ‘demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity’ after telling a patients she would pray for her, while marriage registrar Lillian Ladelle, disciplined for refusing to preside over same-sex civil partnerships, lost her case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal after the panel ruled in favour of the Islington Council’s ‘commitment to equality’.
Brighton Council also withdrew funding from Pilgrim Homes, a Christian care home, after staff refused to quiz elderly residents over the sexual orientation in keeping with ‘fair access and diversity’ policies.
The Christian Institute, a non-denominational charity, says that the GTC code means that universities might ask applicants about their willingness to promote gay rights and Islam.
If a teacher was asked at interview if he or she was willing to use materials designed by gay rights groups, the teacher could be rejected for declining because he or she would be in breach of Principle 4.
If a pupil asked an RE teacher if Jesus Christ was the only means to salvation and the teacher replied yes, a non-Christian parent could complain to the GTC over a breach of Principle 4.
Ofsted inspectors would also be able to criticise schools for promoting the Christian vision of marriage, while teachers who say they will pray for troubled pupils could be suspended for failing to ‘value diversity’.
Colin Hart, Christian Institute director, said: ‘Respect for people as people is not the same as respecting or valuing every religious belief or sexual lifestyle.
‘Forcing this on Christian teachers is to force them to go against their conscience,’ he said.
‘Teachers are there to teach not to be diversity officers.’
The GTC consultation on the new code closed last Friday. H/T: Women Against Sharia
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Almost every time I tune in to the show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU), there is some kind of grotesque and pathetically cheap leftist message being perpetuated. 
Posts
