I knew Daniel. Daniel was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Daniel.

Turns out the idiot was probably a Shia Muslim since he was an Azeri. Which means either a) he believes he's the "Hidden Imam" and thought the lion's den was the well where prayers are dropped into or b) he was attempting to develop the world's first lion powered suicide vest.

BelchSpeak thinks it was a bet. I guess he lost.

Seattle Times:

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lion in a Kiev, Ukraine, zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said Monday.

"The man shouted, 'God will save me, if he exists,' lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said. "A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Posted by: Rusty at 03:05 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

The monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental institution of Western and other civilizations that has evolved to both legitimize the fruits of procreation and provide the basic unit for the socialization of children. As an institution, monogamous, heterosexual marriage has endured for thousands of years, indicating that it is an effective, if imperfect method for the propagation of societal values.

Read the Rest

Posted by: Bluto at 01:41 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

1 How about on Darwinian grounds that homosexuality is, well, anti-Darwinian, and thus shouldn't be blessed?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 01:48 PM (JQjhA)

2 Don't forget "non-incestuous"

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at June 06, 2006 01:48 PM (RIPcF)

3 monogamous, heterosexual marriage = Western civilization = FASCISM!!!!!! Let me marry my male cousin (if I'm gay) and also my sister, ya Nazis!

Posted by: Post From The DU at June 06, 2006 02:20 PM (Gi7oA)

4 I agree, at least in part: The institution of marriage DOES need to be protected -- from the government.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 06, 2006 02:48 PM (FVbj6)

5 This is an example of the times we live in. When we have to protect marriage as between a man, and a women. Everyone knows marriage is between a man, and a women. The New Agers want to push their everything goes religion on every issue that society stands on.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 03:18 PM (D2g/j)

6 Actually, historically speaking, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and another woman. But, again, maybe that's just historical wishful thinking.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 03:28 PM (JQjhA)

7 Very well, Michael. I hereby announce the Universal Church of the Philandering Phallus, taking as our guiding principle the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply". Membership in the UCPP is open to men only. The brothers of the UCPP are encouraged to impregnate as many women as possible: a minimum of 10 babies shall be required for entry into Heaven. The UCPP also recognizes the Islamic principle of taqqiyeh in the pursuit of its mission. The brothers are thereby encouraged to tell the receptacle women that they love them and have had vasectomies.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 03:55 PM (RHG+K)

8 Look at the divorce rates by stae or by region or by religion. They are highest in the south lowest in the northeast. Among christians by denomination highest among conservative evangelicals lowest among lutherans and catholics. But the lowest rate of divorce is among atheists and agnostics. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Posted by: john ryan at June 06, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)

9 Interesting stats John. I guess a percentage of Christians are taught that sex outside of marriage is bad, so they marry to have sex and then things turn bad, whereas those with loose morals sow their wild oats first then settle.

Posted by: Jester at June 06, 2006 04:03 PM (TuAMG)

10 This not about divorce stupid. This is about limits. The New Age, (lefturds), do not want limits of any kind. For example, Homo marriage, drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, or it is hate speech. Most people would like to see society, and their children learn limits. Attack, attack, attack on all fronts. Push G-d off the planet, so you can find god within yourself, or believe you came from a fish a few million years ago.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 04:21 PM (D2g/j)

11 Leatherneck--what "everyone knows" and what is true are two very different things. As someone else pointed out, the vast majority of human civilizations that have ever been studied by anthropologists have been polygamous (85% according to one book I just read, I think it was freakonomics). The same book points out that what we have today in America is more accurately described as serial polygamy for high status males. Johnny carson, because of his great wealth, is allowed to have multiple young wives. Given that male/female ratios are fairly even, what this does is deny several low status males the opportunity of exclusive breeding. Trophy wives here are the functional equivalents of multiple wives in Islamic societies. (in fact, he argues that Islamic polygamy is a better deal for children than our divorce culture) Everyone, get down off your moralizing high horses. Societies also differ greatly in their level of tolerance of homosexuality, although I'd say the majority that I've read about are hardly pro-gay. And as for those of you bringing up Darwinian ideas to condemn homosexuality--there is actually some research in third generation sociobiology which shows that homosexuality is an advantage, biologically. Seriously. How else do you explain the vast numbers of species that engage in it? If it were not so, the genetic roots of the behavior would have disappeared long ago. (I don't think it is exclusively genetic in humans, incidentally, which drives my liberal gay friends into rage). Not only does it work as an expression of dominance among competitive males, it also creates an extra male defender of his blood relatives (ie, his sister, his brother, etc). A lot of sociobiology is quite speculative, but thinking back to a book I read on it two years ago, I remember it being fairly convincing logic.

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 04:22 PM (aqTJB)

12 Incidentally, this idea that DPB puts forth in his longer post, that monogamy has existed for THOUSANDS of years is a crock of shyte. Jesus lived in a culture that widely tolerated polygamy (if it was good enough for Jesus' era...). As recently as Charlemagne (note, that's AFTER muhammed), it was widely accepted that a king could have several wives in rapid succession, sometimes overlapping, along with many concubines. We had functional polygamy in the upper classes in many Christian societies until well into the modern era. Indeed, an anthropologist looking at American slave culture of the South might reach quite an interesting conclusion about just how monogamous the white southern slaveowner class was. Marriage is a necessary institution to our civil society, but to root it in some fictional history is not necessary. Nor does gay marriage threaten it in any way. If your marriage is threatened by two guys living together in holy matrimony...you don't have much of a marriage, do you?

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 04:28 PM (aqTJB)

13 As it was in the time on Noah, so shall it be at the second comming of the son of man.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 06, 2006 04:38 PM (D2g/j)

14 I for one was appalled at the reattempt to ignite the whole gay marriage ban again, it would seem to me a whole class of people are being denied the right to decide their partners medical treatment, medical benefits etc. while I disagree on principle to gay marriage, I do believe there should be laws for civil unions, which gives all the protections, and rights for the above. It should not be a closed door, it should give legal protection for those whom wish to live their life together. If we need the Government to define "marriage" for us, then we probably have a problem. For me, as an individual, marriage will always be between a man and a women, I do not need the Government to define marriage for me.

Posted by: davec at June 06, 2006 04:42 PM (CcXvt)

15 “However, all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nation” - Heinrich Himmler, Germany, 1937

Posted by: Sonic at June 06, 2006 05:06 PM (Gsn6c)

16 jd, Jesus lived and died 2,000 years ago. Monogamy existed at that time (and earlier). Thus, in your own words, you concede the point while calling it "shyte". You should have read the whole post for comprehension though. I used no religious justifications, nor did I condemn homosexuality. I simply pointed that, from a utilitarian point of view, monogamous, heterosexual unions have served as the prime socializers of children. If you don't like heterosexual monogamy, then propose something better, but don't discard something that's working without having an alternative ready. PS: Sorry your folks got divorced, but it was probably your fault.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 05:15 PM (RHG+K)

17 Oh shit, that's cold, Bluto. Which is why I'm laughing my ass off.

Posted by: Vinnie at June 06, 2006 05:29 PM (/qy9A)

18 "I simply pointed that, from a utilitarian point of view, monogamous, heterosexual unions have served as the prime socializers of children." This may be true, but has anyone thought about the fact that children of heterosexual couples benefit more because children of homosexual couples live a life of prejudice and bigotry, which is caused by your conservative activists.

Posted by: d at June 06, 2006 05:29 PM (gs7t+)

19 d: that's possible. It's also possible that having both a father and mother is most conducive to a healthy environment for raising children. In any event, homosexual couples cannot produce children, so that issue isn't germane to the post.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 06, 2006 06:16 PM (RHG+K)

20 IMPEACH TED KENNEDY,IMPEACH TED KENNEDY,IMPEACH TED KENNEDY

Posted by: sandpiper at June 06, 2006 08:16 PM (Zy1Y5)

21 75% of the blacks born in New Orleans are bastards. So what's the diff. They still get their welfare checks and de govment still supplies de govment housing at $67.00 per month. Anyone knows who pays that bill?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:29 AM (v72Rt)

22 Right, impeach Ted Kennedy...how DARE there be a senator who isn't an asshole - bigot!!! We need prejudice and bigotry in this country to keep it alive. HATE HATE HATE!!! Isn't that what we're all about??? Damn Ted Kennedy for speaking out against bigotry!!!

Posted by: d at June 07, 2006 08:43 AM (gs7t+)

23 People abuse their children. Therefore the institution of parents having custody over "children" is wrong and fascist The institution of "parents" is based on false history Let's destroy the concept of "parenting" If you disagree, you must be a bad parent and feel threatened or you are a bigot

Posted by: liberal talking points at June 07, 2006 08:55 AM (Gi7oA)

24 Sorry, the book I referred to above was not Freakonomics, it was the Moral Animal, a brilliant work that uses Darwin's own life to illustrate recent research in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. DPB--when you said "thousands of years" and I replied by pointing out that both Jesus and Charlemagne lived in worlds where polygamy was widely tolerated (either through open multiple marriages or through concubinage, much the same thing), what that said was that "thousands" was not accurate. Maybe, at best, "a thousand". Human civilizations have historically been polygamous. That doesn't make that "right". But it does mean that appealing to ancient history to support monogamy is factually incorrect, and thus, "shyte". Homosexual marriages can produce children. It happened to two women friends of mine. Oh, sure, one of them used some other guy's sperm. But if that is not valid, then what about all the adoptions by heterosexual couples? Some heteros also use artificial insemination. I'm familiar with the teleological arguments that modern followers of Aquinas use (infertile hetero couples still follow God's chosen FORM for reproduction, even if they need assistance on the means) but unless one supports that form of religious argument (as you, apparently, do not) then the distinction between the gay parents and the adoptive straight parents is meaningless. My parents have been married since 1961, and still live together, often without bickering, although that's day to day. They don't think their gay next door neighbors threaten their marriage. Would someone please explain how the institution of marriage is threatened by gay couples? Incidentally, Dave--very well said.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 09:57 AM (aqTJB)

25 jd: monogamous marriage, as an institution, has indeed been around for thousands of years. I did not state that it was the only form of legitimizing and raising offspring; you're reading something into the piece that isn't there. Unless you're stating that the institution of monogamous marriage was created a thousand years ago, or less. Polygamy has historically been the province of the rich. Serfs and peasants didn't have harems. You state that homosexual marriages can produce children, then admit that the sperm came from a donor. Why be so transparently disingenuous? It seems to be a sign of desperation. Your adoption argument is weak, unless you are advocating that all gay couples who want to marry be required to adopt children. I think you can see why forcing people to adopt is not a good idea. Adoption is a choice that has to be uncoerced, and come from the heart. There is also the question of suitability for parenthood. Note that by my concept of the purpose of marriage, heterosexual marrieds who choose not to have children are gaming the system, but such people are a small minority. In fact, all of your arguments involve focussing on the actions of tiny minorities. Sanctioning gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage by invalidating its definition, and legitimizing other forms of "marriage" under the Constitutional principle of equal protection. A good mechanic doesn't disassemble a working engine unless he's convinced he can reassemble it so that it will function better than it did before.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 07, 2006 10:24 AM (RHG+K)

26 DPB--You missed the part where infertile couples also use sperm donors to create children. And yes, we are talking about a small minority, but if it is a question of principle, and you really see gay couples as a "threat" to marriage because they are, in your opinion, non-procreative, then you should deny infertile couples the right of marriage, to remain consistent. If your point was just that monogamy has been around for thousands of years, well, okay. Since it coexisted with polygamy (or was actually secondary to it in many cultures, you are not correct to say it was only the rich) and in some cultures, co-existed with recognized roles for homosexual conduct, why then is it that you are so deathly afraid of gay marriage as a corrosive force on your marriage and the institution itself? As for your toolbox metaphor--a similar argument could be made against all reforms, couldn't it? Let's not get rid of child labor, or slavery. Let's not desegregate the schools, since we aren't sure if integrated schools can work (this was an argument made by many segregationists). It was also an argument used to deny women the right to vote. It is an argument that appears in Islamic countries in opposition to the right of women to drive. This is a perversion of the conservative values espoused by Burke. Often conservatives are right to resist new changes, but to win the argument, they have to make specific claims about the change, not generalized metaphorical opposition that could apply to ANY change. If you can't actually have any ammunition showing how this hurts marriage, you have a weak argument indeed. And that is evidently the case.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 10:53 AM (aqTJB)

27 Why not let federalism work this out? IE, as Louis Brandeis said, states are the laboratories of democracy. If in five years, marriages are collapsing in Massachusetts, but are thriving in Texas (the opposite of what is happening now in hetero marriages in those states) then we'll know that the rest of the states should not copy. But if, instead, this is seen as good way to resolve a social debate, then the rest of the states can copy Massachusetts, modifying it to meet their own state needs. (If God strikes Massachusetts with locusts, earthquakes, plagues, floods, and the Bachman Turner Overdrive, well, we won't copy it, either).

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 02:26 PM (aqTJB)

28 Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the Republican party preaches all about a state government, but now they are whining because they want to pass this federal law? Anything to meet their own needs...

Posted by: d at June 07, 2006 02:49 PM (gs7t+)

29 G-d said mem sleeping with men is an abomination.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 07, 2006 04:20 PM (D2g/j)

30 Leatherneck, G_D also said that if your wife cooks while she's having her period, that's a sin, that if you blaspheme, you should be killed, that if you refuse to make children with your brother's widow, G-D will punish you...using the bible as a direct reference on how to live your life (or what the LAW of a democratic republic should be) is a very tricky thing. the bible also specifies stoning as the penalty for adultery. Oh, and it doesn't allow divorce. Tell you what--you Republicans come out in favor of those last two things as a question of law in America, and I'll support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. Deal?

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 04:43 PM (aqTJB)

31 Isnt there more pressing issues in this country than gay marriage? Seriously here

Posted by: Splatter at June 07, 2006 05:23 PM (heS+8)

32 And one more thing: remember here at Jawa when the iranian letter came out, and people all over the conservative blogosphere pointed to surface similarities and said "Democrat talking points!" just because there was some overlap on parts of the letter. Well, you know who agrees with you all about homosexual marriage being an abomination? Islamofascists. You know who agrees with you all about abortion? Islamofascists. You know who agrees with you all about abstinence only education? Islamofascists. I would NEVER make the ridiculous claim that the overlap in your agendas mean that you are allies of islamofascism. But it is at LEAST as fair as what was said about "democrat talking points" in the Iranian letter.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 05:54 PM (aqTJB)

33 Yea, but in Islam they will cut your head off if you do not see it their way. I just think your heart, and mind is twisted. G-d loves you, and died for your sins, so you can live forever. Maybe, you do not believe in sin, and you can find god within yourself.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 07, 2006 06:16 PM (D2g/j)

34 JD has just proven there is some good in every religion.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 07:28 PM (di2KJ)

35 In fact, Islam is BETTER than Christianity, since they actually kill the homosexuals, right rooster? They got courage that you wish we had, huh?

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)

36 According to the Bible it's also against God's law to touch a pig. So, if you've ever touched a football then I guess you're burning in hell with all of the other infidels. Oh yeah, if a woman who is menstruating even TOUCHES a man (not just sexually, literally touches him -- even his arm) then she is going to hell too. Don't go throwing the Bible around because those of us who support homosexual people can throw it right back at you and make you eat all of your words! God is about LOVE people! Trust me, I was in Catholic school for 16 years! Guess what, homosexuals LOVE as well as heterosexuals! If you don't realize this then you truly are ignorant and stupid, as well as uneduacated. I don't see how loving another human being can be wrong -- whether it be a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Love is love and it isn't defined as being strictly between a man and a woman. I'm willing to bet that at least a couple of people who comment about how horrible homosexuality is, is in the closet themselves. It's known that many homophobes are just scared of their own sexuality. However, if you are Republican and a fundamentalist, then you live your life by judging and hating others, filled with bigotry. Love is such a foreign concept to you judgemental idiots. I guess I can understand why God actaully loving, and others loving each other can be such an "abomination"...my bad.

Posted by: d at June 08, 2006 06:54 AM (gs7t+)

37 D--I think you are misreading the old testament. It doesn't say "go to hell". The idea of punishment in the afterlife is not as clear in the bible as many Christians and their critics think. Satan appears seldom in the bible and much of the afterlife speculation is just that, speculation. The specific passages you reference in leviticus say that those who engage in that conduct are ritually unclean. That meant that they had to engage in purification rituals. A lot of those rules made hygenic sense at the time. More people have been saved by hand washing than vaccines. On love, though, you and I are in agreement!

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 09:23 AM (DQYHA)

38 >>>The monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental institution of Western and other civilizations that has evolved to both legitimize the fruits of procreation and provide the basic unit for the socialization of children. As an institution, monogamous, heterosexual marriage has endured for thousands of years, indicating that it is an effective, if imperfect method for the propagation of societal values.<<< Yes, and all of that will go down the tubes if gays get their marriages (their current ones) recognized by the government. If gays get married that means that heteros can't. It's airtight logic people.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:20 PM (ZucvC)

39 Oh the irony. This post right after a post lauding those polygamous mormons.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:27 PM (ZucvC)

40 "If gays get married that means that heteros can't." Uhh...again, logic? I reiterate...uneducated. Guess what, gay people have been getting married in MA for 3 years and we have one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation, and more and more heteros are getting married along with homosexuals. The statement you made makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is the dumbest thing I've ever heard...even for a conservative.

Posted by: d at June 08, 2006 05:48 PM (gs7t+)

41 jd, when I was talking about "going to hell" I was spewing back the same sh*t that the fundamentalists have been throwing out. They say that homosexuals as well as those of us who support homosexuals are all going to hell. I was just quoting them. I get what you mean though

Posted by: d at June 08, 2006 05:51 PM (gs7t+)

42 Sorry, D, I get it now. Apologies for unnecessary pedantry.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:18 AM (DQYHA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

One thing I've always admired about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) is that they, unlike other denominations, haven't forgotten the time honored Christian tradition of excommunication. With Sen Harry Reid's (D-Nev) new found stance opposing the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as betwen a man and a woman at odds with that of the Mormon church, isn't it time the Mormons disassociate themselves from him?

An organization, by definition, must have boundaries. That is, there must be a way to recognize who is "in" the organization and who is "out" of the organization. Excommunication has traditionally been the way a church proclaims a person is "out"--that that person is no longer part of the organization.

So, when was it that Christian churches stopped excommunicating their members who publicly oppose the official stances of the church?

My Catholic friends say to me that "you can be pro-choice, but you can't be a pro-choice Catholic." Okay, that sounds about right. The Catholic Church's official stance is that abortion is homicide. So, why doesn't the Catholic church go ahead and excommunicate Ted Kennedy?

Not to pick on the Catholics. That's just an example of a public personality at public odds with a church he says he "belongs" to. Protestants, it seems to me, are much worse than Catholics. At least the Catholic church does still excommunicate, albeit more rarely than I'd like to see.

I've never heard of a Protestant church excommunicating some one. Never. Perhaps it happens, but it must be a rare event.

So, back to the Mormons. These guys seem to have no problem with excommunicating any one for pretty much any reason. Good on them.

I know a couple of people who were excommunicating from the LDS church for adultery. Not only does excommunication tell the world, "we do not tolerate this sort of behavior," it also serves as a social sanction so that members of the organization are warned not to do certain things considered "out of bounds". People who wish to remain "in" the organization are warned that if you do something considered morally aggregious, you are "out".

Had the Baptists had the same policy, perhaps my Grandfather--a practicing Baptist minister--would not have been a serial adulterer. As far as I can tell, my grandfather loved the Baptist church, and had their been consequences for his actions perhaps he would have thought twice before the actions.

I've also often wondered what would Bill Clinton's Presidency have been like had the Baptists preached less forgiveness for sin and more don't do the sin in the first place lest you find yourself "out" of the group.

Which brings us back to Harry Reid. He is allegedly a good Mormon. I'm sure he's faithful to his wife, is honest, and does all the things good Mormons are supposed to do, but it seems to me that his political philisophy is now at odds with the Mormon church.

KUTV:

An apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stood with several other religious leaders at a news conference in Washington supporting a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles participated in a press conference with the Alliance for Marriage, and met with President Bush at the White House before giving a statement in support of amending the U.S. Constitution.

"Together we share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God," Nelson said. "The time has now come when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine inheritance. Such action does not reduce our regard for individuals who choose to live by other standards. But it confirms our conviction that marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue and the foundation for eternal exaltation."

But maybe that's just one leader's own opinion on the amendment. Or is supporting the amendment the official position of the LDS Church? KUTV:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has spent millions of dollars campaigning against gay marriage, urged members Sunday to lobby U.S. senators on the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to being between a man and a woman.

The church sent a letter to leaders throughout the United States that was to be read to the congregations Sunday.

The letter from the First Presidency – church President Gordon B. Hinckley and his counselors – noted the church leaders "have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.''

The letter noted that the Senate was scheduled to vote on the proposed marriage amendment on June 6, and said, "We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.''

So, what is Sen. Harry Reid's take on the amendment banning gay marriage? The Hill:

“The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the president’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and to confuse America.”

But the real question I have is for the Mormon Church. Why would you guys want to claim a guy like Harry Reid, who thinks your official support of a Constitutional Amendment is not only ill advised but ill motivated?

The highest elected Democrat in the country thinks you, the Mormon church hierarchy, are full of crap. Are you guys just going to stand there and take it?

If Harry Reid no longer feels the Mormon church leaders are speaking for God, then the logical step would be to either to stop calling himself a Mormon or for the Mormons to kick him out.

Just to make myself clear, my objection to Reid's stance is niether political nor theological. As a Christian Universalist I believe all people--even Democrats and gay people--eventually go to heaven. As a libertarian, I have no problem with two hot chicks going down to the local Unitarian church and getting hitched. Heck, I don't even really have a problem with three hot chicks getting hitched. Or even one guy, and three hot chicks getting hitched! (although I do object to states being forced to recognize such kinky unions as legally binding "marriage" contracts)

But I do have a problem with people who wish to claim they are part of an organization, but then are consistently at odds with it. This is not Europe. One is not "born" into a religion. Your religion and your ethnic identity are not the same here. One chooses which religious organizations one belongs to.

So, Harry Reid, if you are no longer a Mormon, please do us all a favor and be honest about it. And you Mormons, aren't you ashamed that this guy uses your religion as poliltical cover? And for the rest of the religious leaders out there: do us all a favor and start excommunicating people.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear from readers about their thoughts on excommunication. Does your church or denomination ever do it? If so, under what circumstances?

Posted by: Rusty at 01:22 PM | Comments (66) | Add Comment
Post contains 1267 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Liberalism is like a viral weapon. You see, Liberals who disagree with their churches could easily just leave and start their own denominations. But they don't do that. Instead, just like a virus attacking a cell, they try to change the church from within and transform it into something that no longer even resembles a church. Until it starts looking less like a church and more like a Lion's Club or the Rotarians, except with pews and an organ. They HAVE to transform that church because Liberalism and christianity cancel each other out. For christianity to co-exist with modern Liberalism it has to stop being christianity. It has to become Liberalism with just the patina of spirituality added to it. But it no longer bears any resemblance to the church it once was. That's why Liberal churches that have been transformed like that are are quick to negotiate away the traditional doctrines and dogmas of their religion, yet are adamant about maintaining the trappings of the old religion (i.e., form of worship and liturgy, organs, traditional vestments and ceremonies, etc.). Those trappings are still very near and ear to them. They clutch to them for dear life. And they have to!!! Because if not, they'll have nothing left at all to call a church. It starts to look like windown dressing. And in the process, Libs are killing those churches. They're dying out. Good riddance though. The evangelicals are growing by leaps and bounds even as the mainline churches wither on the diseased vine. To be fair, some Libs have tried to start their own religion. It's called unitarianism/universalism. It's not doing very well either.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 01:48 PM (8e/V4)

2 Carlos, But aren't the evangelicals just as guilty when it comes to excommunication? That is, they are quick to condemn (it seems) with words, but not with deeds.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 01:50 PM (JQjhA)

3 So the official position of the LDS church is that it's members should support the amendment

Actually, as far as I can tell, the official position is to have lawyers closely draft letters such as this.

The letter does not say the church supports the amendment, it merely says the church believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.

It also does not say that members should support the amendment, it just urges members to "express themselves".

Support for the amendment and expectation of members to support the amendment is not explicitly stated.

Given that the church highly values the ability of each individual to choose the right, I always find it interesting when the church takes a stand on political issues. There is a big difference between legal and right, something that sometimes gets lost among zealots of every stripe.

FWIW, I am a Mormon. I do not believe the constitution should be diddled in this particular manner. While I do not think homosexual marriage (or, for that matter, polygamy) is a good thing, that does not mean I think it should be illegal. The church's position should be one of instructing its members in proper conduct, not attempting to coerce good out of the unwilling.

(for a quick overview of the difference, go rent A Clockwork Orange)

Posted by: Anachronda at June 06, 2006 01:58 PM (Y7t14)

4 Howdy, Rusty. Re: protestant excommunications, look up Marian Guinn, a woman who was excommunicated by a Church of Christ in Oklahoma in the 80's. She sued, and won almost 400,000 dollars for "invasion of privacy." The fact that she had resigned from the church made the suit possible, the courts ruled. Of course, resigning and being excommunicated are two different things from a religious point of view - excommunication carries with it the command to the faithful to have nothing further to do with the excommunicated, while resignation is simply not addressed. Interestingly, the websites I found discussing this were overwhelmingly mormon (which is not the same thing as Church of Christ - very, very different) sites which are advising their congregations on what NOT to do to avoid losing lawsuits.

Posted by: attentionseeker at June 06, 2006 01:58 PM (PXobq)

5 Anachronda, To imply that following dogma is akin to brainwashing, with your Clockwork Orange example, is just effed up--seriously. Not making something legal is not the same as making it illegal. Duh. This amendment does not "outlaw" gay marriage, it simply makes gay marriage extra-legal--not recognized by state institutions. So, if two hot chicks want to get "married" they still can, but what the amendment does is make sure state institutions don't recognize such a union as a valid contract. Attention Seeker, So, one church excommunicated one person 30 years ago???

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 02:08 PM (JQjhA)

6 Mack Uh, no.... That was simply what I remember from my 'yout,' as I grew up in the CofC and it was a big deal back then. I'm sure if you search for cases of protestant excommunication, you will find some, but lack of finding does not indicate lack of occurance. After all, if some backwoods Baptist church excommunicates a member, why would that become either newsworthy, part of the public record, or something someone wishes to 'blog about, which are the three things I consider necessary for something to end up catalogued on the 'net? I'd be willing to bet some of the more fundamentalist churches do this with some frequency, but why would you or I find out about it? In addition, I realize I made a mistake in my post above - the mormon sites are not sites to help churches, but seem to be targetted at those wishing to leave the LDS church and 'make it stick,' without going through what Norman Hancock went through when he resigned from the LDS.

Posted by: attentionseeker at June 06, 2006 02:18 PM (PXobq)

7 Yeah, well, it seems rare. Too rare, in my book. I don't know what this guy Hancock went through, but it seems to me that social sanctions are entirely appropriate for any one who leaves a church or is booted out. As opposed to Sharia which are legal sanctions.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 02:25 PM (JQjhA)

8 Mitt Romney supports the FMA, and wrote a letter to every senator asking them to vote "yes". Harry Reid is wrong, this is the most important issue for the Senate to address right now.

Posted by: Kevin at June 06, 2006 02:25 PM (M/4kE)

9 Kevin, And you'd think Mitt Romney would know something about the need for the amendment, since he was the governor of a state where the court forced gay marriage. Is he Mormon?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 02:30 PM (JQjhA)

10 >>>But aren't the evangelicals just as guilty when it comes to excommunication? That is, they are quick to condemn (it seems) with words, but not with deeds. There is excommunication based on sin, vs excommunication based on doctrine. If the doctrines are not in sync, they will be asked to leave. Excommunication based on personal sin is entirely a different matter. My experience is that they condemn the sin, but they don't single individuals out for condemnation. In other words they teach what the Bible says about sin, but they aren't picking on some dude sitting in the pews who happens to be sinning. Take adultery for example. You'll hear sermons about it, but they aren't going to single some dude out for ridicule. It is expected that the Holy Spirit would convict him, not the pastor. But let's say the dude's wife approaches the pastor with the problem. In that case the pastor would call them in for counseling. Worst case scenario in some churches is that they'd ask him to leave because he won't repent of his sin and he's making it miserable for her to keep attending.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 02:31 PM (8e/V4)

11 Carlos, Isn't there some kind of Biblical injunction about this? You know, "anathema" and all that?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 02:32 PM (JQjhA)

12 There is excommunication based on sin, vs excommunication based on doctrine. If the doctrines are not in sync, they will be asked to leave. Let me clarify that. This applies to church leaders, not to regular slobs sitting in the pews.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 02:34 PM (8e/V4)

13 Why not?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 02:36 PM (JQjhA)

14 why not what.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 02:50 PM (8e/V4)

15 Call me cynical, but finances may play a role in the decision not to excommunicate. Booting people isn't good for donations. To repeat: I said "may play a role." Not slamming any denominations here.

Posted by: Vintastick Mambo No. 5 at June 06, 2006 02:52 PM (/qy9A)

16 Why didn't the Vatican excommunicate pro-choice politicians? Two reasons. First, when anti-Catholicism was all the rage, as recently as the 50s, the primary argument against Catholics was that we would be loyal to Rome before the US. This was a particularly strong argument against electing Catholics to office. The Vatican is leery of this. Second, it isn't technically a sin to support the right to have an abortion, though it definitely is a sin to have an abortion. Women who have abortions excommunicate themselves from the Church.

Posted by: rightwingprof at June 06, 2006 02:58 PM (hj1Wx)

17 JC, Why not excommunicate the congregants as opposed to the ministers? Rightwingprof, If abortion is "homicide", then I don't see how supporting a "right to commit homicide" could be anything but a sin. If abortion is nothing more than clipping a toenail, then no problem theologically.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 03:02 PM (JQjhA)

18 >>>>Why not excommunicate the congregants as opposed to the ministers? Because the role of congregant and minister are so different. Congregants go to church to LEARN about the word of God, so it's tolerated if they are ignorant or wayward. It is expected that the Holy Spirit will do the convicting of his sin, not the pastor. But the church leaders can't be given that kind of leeway lest they lead their congregants astray. So they're asked to repent, or leave.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 03:08 PM (8e/V4)

19 JC, I see. Seems better than no church, but not as good as good old-fashioned Puritanical social shunning. But maybe that's just me.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 03:18 PM (JQjhA)

20 AGREED!!! As a "Mormon", I am embarrassed about Harry Reid. His views are completely contrary to that of our church, and I agree with you completely about the excommunication. At least remove his status as a member in good standing! I hope our church will make a point of this a take the appropriate measures!

Posted by: UtahPatriot at June 06, 2006 03:28 PM (105pD)

21 MORMON'S PERSPECTIVE: A mormon here. Hello. Harry Reid IS doing something expressly discussed among grounds for excommunication. It isn't of course my decision to make, but that of his immediate ecclesiastical leaders. Okay, so here's what he's doing--he's affiliating with a group whose ideals are contra gospel principles. Plain and simply, that's what democrats have become as they've attempted to reach out to all the downtrodden. Gays have finally found some success turning their predicament into a race issue. Democrats have taken the bait, and are willing to stand up for gays as though some social injustice is done when gays get told they're wrong, and it's not a race issue. The democratic party certainly wasn't always like this. Jefferson's ideals were much more inline with gospel principles than Hamiltonian rhetoric in the outset. Of course the Church didn't exist until 1830, but the principles have always been around. Reid is smart to stick with his story of bad motives, rather than attack the substance of the argument. He's like a pharisee standing there watching Jesus purge the temple grounds of its merchandisers. Of course he doesn't tell Jesus he's wrong to do it, But he does ask 'Who's this guy?' and 'Why now, why not later... or earlier?' Now, excommunicate him? Pure speculation here, but that probably won't happen. Not for this. If he came out and said gay marriage should have the same esteem as traditional marriage, that would be more like it. So far he's just kind of dancing around it, hoping he never has to say it. Even then, would he really believe it?

Posted by: David Sudweeks at June 06, 2006 03:41 PM (svsF9)

22 uhhhh yes the sanctity of holy matrimony. Wedded bliss. Family values. Divorce rates are lowest in the northeast highest in the south. Atheists and agnostics have a lower divorce rate than any christain church group. Buddhists were not listed. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Posted by: john ryan at June 06, 2006 03:47 PM (TcoRJ)

23 Harry Reid is trying to nuance his way out of something where there is neither excuse nor room for such 'nuance.' I'm a member of the LDS Church and the only way he'd be ex-communicated is if he came out vocaly, and directly (explicitly direct) against the Church leadership. I hope he changes his mind. Between all the talk of state powers and the attempts to trivialize this issue I hope enough people see these inane smokescreens for what they are. Give the states the chance to vote up or down on the amendment. If you want to talk about state powers the propositioning of amending the federal constitution CAN'T take their powers because it both uses them to determine any amendment AND because the moment an amendment is passed the constitution is changed and the rights are NO LONGER the state's jurisdiction. And this crap on diviciveness is such garbage. When we as a society pretend that altering the way that the government interacts with the most fundamental unit in our society is a "side show" then we'll fully warrant the damnation that is inherent in such a fundamental change. People freak out about GMO (Geneticaly modified organsims) yet they don't take a second thought scrambling the endorsed structure of society at it's fundamental levels. This truly is akin to saying that the DNA sequences should be "endorsed" in whatever random mutations that can occur. When you endorse detrimental mutations you get cancer. That's what our society is so close to doing here in the US. Make no mistake, this is one of the most important issues in the history of human government. And so many in the MSM and in the left wing want to pretend that it's some cheesy side show.

Posted by: HiveRadical at June 06, 2006 03:52 PM (+hMKw)

24 I am a politically conservative Mormon who finds Harry Reid very misguided and annoying but from what I understand of excommunication within the Church, it is very unlikely that he has anything to worry about. As mentioned in the post, excommunication or more mild forms of church discipline are invoked when personal behavior conflicts with church teachings. Despite what its critics may suggest, the Church is reluctant to publicly endorse a political position unless it directly involves a moral issue. Even so, the Church does not require its members to adhere to or actively endorse these positions (even if it asks us to). The last time something similar happened was in the '70s when the Church opposed the ERA and a member, Sonia Johnson was excommunicated not for opposing the Church's position but because she actively tried to undermine Church leaders and the Church's missionary efforts. Some may quibble with the distinction but I believe that if she just stuck to pursuing her honest poltical differences she would not have been exed. Regarding Senator Reid, I don't know how he resolves his personal beliefs (which he claims to be in accord with his Church) with his public actions (which are not). But that is not for me to judge.

Posted by: David H. Sundwall at June 06, 2006 04:25 PM (5U4Vx)

25 In response to the statement made by Anachronda. -- "Actually, as far as I can tell, the official position is to have lawyers closely draft letters such as this...The letter does not say the church supports the amendment, it merely says the church believes marriage should be between a man and a woman...It also does not say that members should support the amendment, it just urges members to "express themselves". Actually the very reason that Elder Russel M. Nelson was sent to Washington under the direction of the First Presidency was to call to the attention of others the need for such an ammendment. The Church does support it! To "express yourself" and not be for or against it, might AND I say MIGHT be interpreted as being "luke warm" or a fence sitter. As members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (YES I am a member) we believe and sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators with the authoritative right to speak to the Savior's people and all nations of the Earth the mind and will of God. Does the Savior himself have to come and do this for the people to know of it's validity?...I think not...that is why these men have been called by God to be who they are. We do not believe leaders of our Church to be infallible but in matters such as these when the Church makes a move and takes a stand, it is not something that can be trivialized to a point of just expressing ourselves. It was stated earlier right out of the broadcast what Elder Nelson said while in Washington, D.C.(see below in quotes). My belief is that this is a spiritual issue for the Church as much as is it is a political issue for the rest of our nation with regards to members of the LDS Church. "Together we share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God, the time has now come when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine inheritance. Such action does not reduce our regard for individuals who choose to live by other standards. But it confirms our conviction that marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue and the foundation for eternal exaltation." --Elder Russel M. Nelson

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 06, 2006 04:52 PM (105pD)

26 Harry Reid is a Mormon??? Protestants can excommunicate members??? Learned two things in one post. WTG Rusty

Posted by: RepJ at June 06, 2006 05:01 PM (y6n8O)

27 I'm not Morman but I believe in polygamy. I've been trying to convince the wife that she needs some help around the house. One about 25 years old with long legs and big hooters should do.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 05:31 PM (Y2/LN)

28 Is there something wrong with holding the opinion that marriage should be between only between a man and a wife, and also hold the opinion that we don't need an amendment to the constitution to say so? As a lifelong observant Mormon, I see no reason for Harry Reid to be excommunicated or reprimanded in anyway. On the contrary, I think it would be very disturbing if *any* diciplinary action resulted from Senator Reid's vote. Those of you who do need to get a better understanding of what charity is--otherwise your whining makes the rest of us Mormons look bad. I don't agree with the Democrats stance on abortion, but there are also plenty of Republicans nowdays that support abortion that it is a moot point for me (Bo Derek for example). I'd rather vote for a "tax & spend Democrat" over a "borrow & spend Republican" any day. Where in the Republican Party have those sound Mormon principles of self-reliance and "pay-as-you-go" disappeared to?

Posted by: Jason at June 06, 2006 05:47 PM (Zt8lk)

29 "So, the official position of the LDS church is that it's members should support the amendment." Actually, the official stance, according to that letter is that members should express themselves to their elected representatives in the Senate. The letter is specifically written not to explicitly tell people how to view this politically.

Posted by: Kim Siever at June 06, 2006 05:51 PM (hpMoJ)

30 "Take adultery for example. You'll hear sermons about it, but they aren't going to single some dude out for ridicule." The Mormon church usually only excommunicates adulterers when they refuse to repent, or if they're in a position of trust. Also, its not really "singling out some dude for ridicule." Its hardly ever announced or anything. Usually the only way you find out is that you're connected to the events somehow or you start asking about why so and so hasn't come to church in a while. In every instance, if a Mormon excommunication gets publicized, its because the excommunicated person has decided to announce it.

Posted by: Adam Greenwood at June 06, 2006 06:21 PM (ZLP14)

31 Er, Kim, if that is the case how come one of your Apostles went to D.C. on an official visit and officially endorsed the Amendment?

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 07:03 PM (JQjhA)

32 To Kim Siever, The statement that was made in my previous post was that the Church does support it as far as the brethren are concerned. The opinion, which I failed to identify it as such, in my previous statement is that to "express themselves" only to the degree of expression MIGHT be interpreted to be "luke warm". I believe that Church officials would indeed yes, have us, as they say "express ourselves" to our elected representatives. But that cannot be interpreted as express ourselves and then go on our merry way and say the politics are dancing. The point I was attempting make was not a political one at all. It was directed towards members of the Church to evaluate it from a spiritual point of view. I do this because of being a member and at the same time belonging to an organization that opposes Gay and Lesbian couples from adopting children. As an adoptor and adoptee, digging deep into what has been taught in my upbringing there is no compromise to the divine appointment of a Father (man) and Mother (woman). Now if you are a not a member of the LDS Church and you are reading this then you can take it at face value and view it with all the political ferver that you can muster up. But if you are a member of the Church I would hope that you would rely on basic Gospel principles and what has been taught and look beyond the political attributes of the matter. Upon careful observation of Elder Nelson's statment he explicitly stated, "Together we share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God, the time has now come when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine inheritance". That is not a political statement more than it is a spiritual statement and I doubt that he went or was sent to Washington with any political agenda to advocate a political position. Unfortunately such matters fall into the realm of having to play around the political affairs of an almost godless nation, or at least one that is slow to remember who has blessed them with what they possess. Although the Church will not dictate to its members how to view this politically, I do believe that they are emphasizing in a "counseling" like manner to do what D&C 9:9 tells us to do. Otherwise the warning is the same as what is given in Alma 60:7. We can "express", which is fine, but we should also do and support our leaders by becoming involved where and when we can.

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 06, 2006 07:19 PM (105pD)

33 Er, MWNU, where in that letter does it say anything about one of the apostles going to DC on an official visit? Rusty quoted the letter (or an article quoting the letter) and then based his statement on an interpretation he made of the letter. Nelson's trip to DC has nothing to do with what direction Mormons were given in that letter.

Posted by: Kim Siever at June 06, 2006 07:22 PM (hpMoJ)

34 PraticalReason, What I said had nothing to do with morality. It had to do with Rusty's use of an non-partisan comment to support a moral claim. I was simply pointing out that what he deduced from that statement is not what the statement said, regardless of what other statements have said.

Posted by: Kim Siever at June 06, 2006 07:25 PM (hpMoJ)

35 Exommunicate AL GORE he is a deffinit new age earth worshiping pagan freak

Posted by: sandpiper at June 06, 2006 08:18 PM (Zy1Y5)

36 I am not wrapped around the letter. The news article can be seen at the following link: http://kutv.com/local/local_story_157104811.html We can all form our own opinions and if anything Elder Nelson's visit to Washington to me was an extension of the letter on the First Presidency's views of the matter. I was only stating that the Church's position is more of a spiritual one than it is a political one. If you are referring to Rusty's statement, "So, the official position of the LDS church is that it's members should support the amendment". I agree with you 100%; that is not what the letter or any other Church press release has stated. You are correct in pointing out the non-partisan comment being used to support a moral claim as being unfounded. I was not trying to support the claim that Church has asked its members to explicitly support this amendment. It could be ‘word-smithed’ to death and left to endless interpretation. What I was attempting to do was to show my devotion to what I believe to be true. By the content of the letter that was released to members from the First Presidency and the Quorum or the Twelve and then a follow-up of an Apostle of the Lord being there in Washington with other leaders to support the amendment, I do believe that the message (non-formal) that is being sent from our Church leaders with regards to supporting such an amendment is to do the "morally" correct thing as per the teachings received within the boundaries of our religion. Some might say that this point of view is an oversimplification to a complex problem. In my opinion, if this is only a political situation for Church members or in the least degree political views have superseded the role of moral and spiritual views of the subject matter, then it is sadly unfortunate.

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 06, 2006 08:33 PM (105pD)

37 What I am trying to say is that we know where the brethren stand on this and granted they have not asked us to explicitly support this amendment, but I do sustain their actions in opposing Gay and Lesbian marriage and support the ideals of preventing activist judges from over-turning the people's vote for what ever their (real) motives might be. Until a prophet of God tells me that such "unnatural affection" within the legal bonds of marriage have been divinely sanctioned I myself could not find myself to do anything else but support and advocate support for the amendment. Within the bounds of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints the moral principle is an absolute until otherwise revealed.

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 06, 2006 08:53 PM (105pD)

38 What I am trying to say is that we know where the brethren stand on this and granted they have not asked us to explicitly support this amendment, but I do sustain their actions in opposing Gay and Lesbian marriage and support the ideals of preventing activist judges from over-turning the people's vote for what ever their (real) motives might be. Until a prophet of God tells me that such "unnatural affection" within the legal bonds of marriage have been divinely sanctioned I myself could not find myself to do anything else but support and advocate support for the amendment. Within the bounds of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the moral principle is an absolute until otherwise revealed.

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 06, 2006 08:59 PM (105pD)

39 ROTFLOL! ...One thing I've always admired about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) is that they, unlike other denominations, haven't forgotten the time honored Christian tradition of excommunication.... Great post! Excommunication certainly has it's time and place, yet Reid's political opinions simply does not qualify him for that level of exclusion and/or censure. However, I do agree with the sentiment.

Posted by: LDS Patriot at June 06, 2006 09:10 PM (eWKvW)

40 An ammendment is necessary to protect the traditional family from judges bent pleasing the few.

Posted by: peacemaker at June 06, 2006 10:25 PM (klWDE)

41 The Church doesn't endorse political positions, only those viewed by the leaders as a "moral" issue. For example, in the past, they have asked members to vote agains't.... gambling, alcohol, Equal Rights Amendment (Sonia Johnson)and now Protection of Marriage issue...as defined by marriage between man and a woman. To most it is politics...to the Mormon Church..it is purely a moral issue....one central to the main purpose of the Church....the continuance of the family thru marriage....here and in the future.

Posted by: Tony at June 07, 2006 12:24 AM (qwcbr)

42 That said...Harry Reid is an idiot.. an embarrassment to all.... Fortunately, most people clearly recognize it!

Posted by: Tony at June 07, 2006 12:32 AM (qwcbr)

43 As a Mormon, I must say, with the greatest reluctance, that Harry Reid should not be excommunicated, because it would provide grist for the propaganda mills of the apologetics who claim the Church "dictates" how we vote, or "runs" the state of Utah behind the scenes. But Harry Reid proffered one of the more disingenuous explanations I've heard since John Kerry tapdanced his way to defeat in 2004. He says he's against gay marriage, but is also against the Marriage Protection Amendment? What's up with that?

Posted by: Anchorage Activist at June 07, 2006 01:50 AM (rFXoP)

44 I don't have much to say about Reid and excommunication; not being of any church myself. Many others have addressed the issue quite succinctly. But I think they're going about this all wrong. While they insist on handling the whole illegal immigration issue, from securing the border to what to do with those already in violation, they have attacked this problem of marriage in a narrowly focused manner by ignoring what is really at the bottom of it all. Supporting an amendment without regard to certain legal rights that gays are unable to enjoy as contributing members of society is making the matter worse. It is my personal opinion that if they want to ammend the Constitution to specify marriage as between one man and one woman, then they need to also extend to gays some manner of protection from being exploited. A civil union or some manner of protection. If John and Bill (or Jane and Mary) spend thirty years together and Bill dies, John has no real legal right to Bill's estate. Without a contract legally bound by law Bill's parents, and even his siblings, can strip John of everything he and Bill worked together to achieve. A will can be too easily annulled, and has been. Yes, some judges will find on John's behalf, but by making this ammendment alone, it will be even harder for that to happen. So - if they want to take this all the way to the constitution they should take a two-pronged approach. Or leave it to the States.

Posted by: Oyster at June 07, 2006 03:50 AM (YudAC)

45 Oh yeah, amendment has two m's, not three. Copy/paste has it's disadvantages.

Posted by: Oyster at June 07, 2006 03:52 AM (YudAC)

46 Is this still the Jawa report?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:34 AM (v72Rt)

47 "...we urge members..." NOT "...we command members..."

Posted by: Paul F Justham at June 07, 2006 07:54 AM (+hwWD)

48 If abortion is "homicide", then I don't see how supporting a "right to commit homicide" could be anything but a sin. Many Catholics would agree that it is. However, the Church tries to stay away from even the perception that elected Catholics are being directed from Rome. Also, anyone would surely agree that there is a huge gulf between supporting the right to an abortion and actually having an abortion. As a Mormon, I must say, with the greatest reluctance, that Harry Reid should not be excommunicated, because it would provide grist for the propaganda mills of the apologetics who claim the Church "dictates" how we vote, or "runs" the state of Utah behind the scenes. There's the Mormon analogy.

Posted by: rightwingprof at June 07, 2006 10:05 AM (hj1Wx)

49 Great post, Oyster. Why don't catholics excommunicate the members who support abortion? How about because an estimated 50% of catholics support legal abortion in circumstances the church would not? And it is of course possible to oppose gay marriage and this amendment on federalism grounds. That's Reid's position. Historically, marriage has been a core state function. To attenuate that freedom at the national level is problematic for many. Even in 1912, when the vast majority of white Americans opposed any interracial marriage, an amendment to prevent Mass. and other liberal states from marrying blacks and whites failed to pass the congress. Despite the extraordinary dominance of racists in the Congress, they treasured federalism more. (this was the same congress that also failed, repeatedly, to pass federal laws against lynching, which was killing so many blacks without any state penalty). At the time, a few interracial couples would leave the South or Midwest, and go north to get legally hitched. Just as it took a long time for the principle of interracial marriage to be accepted, it will take a long time for gay marriage to win. But the tide of history on this issue is clear. Conservatives are fighting a "rear guard action" (yes, a funny way to describe anti-sodomists) on gay rights, and they know it. Gay rights are moving much faster than black rights did. Majorities of Americans already accept that gays should have workplace rights. That wasn't true of blacks for several hundred years, and decades after the civil war. Gays are elected officials, openly, in both parties, when in 1968 there were none. This amendment is going nowhere, and everyone knows it. It is a sideshow distraction from a failed administration. Are social conservatives this dumb, to think Bush cares about this? In 2004, an election year, he gave hundreds of speeches on this. In 2005, a lexis search shows that he NEVER mentioned it, not once. In 2006, up till now, he NEVER mentioned it. Wake up, fools. You vote for pro-life, prayer in the schools, and a ban on gay marriage. You get tax cuts for Paris Hilton.

Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 10:22 AM (aqTJB)

50 Ah. Forget the fags. They are not only against, The church they are against nature. And you should never mess with mother nature. I thought aids was going to take care of this problem.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 12:57 PM (RciVP)

51 One Can't be excommincate for voting contrary to the leaders. Here's what former LDS president Heber J. Grant said about those who voted differently than he did on rescinding Prohibition - "Some of my friends begged me to come out and appeal to the people individually, to ask every Latter-day Saint to vote to maintain the Eighteenth Amendment. I believe men that have lived the gospel just as well as I have ever lived it, many of them, were conscientious in voting for repeal." (Heber J. Grant)

Posted by: Leah Hona at June 07, 2006 04:08 PM (jqQzW)

52 PracticalReason says: "Until a prophet of God tells me that such "unnatural affection" within the legal bonds of marriage have been divinely sanctioned I myself could not find myself to do anything else but support and advocate support for the amendment. Within the bounds of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the moral principle is an absolute until otherwise revealed." How can you call yourself "Practical Reason" when your position quoted above puts faith before reason. It is clear by your response that you have abdicated your agency to choose for yourself to others who evidently know better than you. This is not "practical reason", it is blind faith, if not a form of idolatry.

Posted by: Stupor of Thought at June 07, 2006 05:42 PM (YUxIP)

53 I am a faithful Mormon, and I especially like "Give 'em hell Harry." I completely agree with his position and his observation that we are ignoring more critical issues in order to pitch a fit over this proposed amendment. I saw that the ultra-conservative press tried to make him ridiculous by comparing the price of gas to the eternal sanctity of the family. Pretty transparent.

Posted by: kateye at June 08, 2006 12:07 AM (SHrIP)

54 How about because an estimated 50% of catholics support legal abortion in circumstances the church would not? Whose estimation is this? Obviously, someone who does not know many Catholics.

Posted by: rightwingprof at June 08, 2006 10:27 AM (hj1Wx)

55 One can't be excommincated for voting contrary to the leaders. Here's what former LDS president Heber J. Grant said about those who voted differently than he did on rescinding Prohibition - "Some of my friends begged me to come out and appeal to the people individually, to ask every Latter-day Saint to vote to maintain the Eighteenth Amendment. I believe men that have lived the gospel just as well as I have ever lived it, many of them, were conscientious in voting for repeal." (Heber J. Grant)

Posted by: Captain Moroni at June 08, 2006 01:12 PM (jqQzW)

56 testing

Posted by: HooverDam at June 08, 2006 02:45 PM (MUxFa)

57 Stupor of Thought, I am not sure to which religion you belong. But what I "evidently don't know", is quite possibly a lot of things. What I do know is that I have not abdicated my agency to choose for myself but that I choose to sustain and support the leaders of the faith that I belong to because of an inward conviction and commitment to certain moral principles that are unchangeable. In simpler terms God did not put Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve in the Garden and command them to multiply and replenish the Earth as per biblical terms. It was Adam (man) and Eve (woman). The amendment is establishing that very precedence of preserving the sanctity of marriage and what Christians and most other religions generally believe to be the basic foundation for the family unit. In my observation society has come to a point of setting themselves above the standard that was established a long time ago; a standard that is, yes a moral principle. It seems that some organizations would rather deny the existence of a God altogether to sanction within their power the ability to do things beyond such standards; redefining them (per se) for an evolving society so as to not be accountable for going against a moral principle. But again this is just what I believe. What you call "blind faith" I would call a "personal conviction of a moral principle". But you are entitled to your own beliefs regarding the matter and I will respect that.

Posted by: PraticalReason at June 08, 2006 03:28 PM (105pD)

58 >>>They HAVE to transform that church because Liberalism and christianity cancel each other out.<<< Yeah, Jesus was a stuanch conservative. >>>That's why Liberal churches that have been transformed like that are are quick to negotiate away the traditional doctrines and dogmas of their religion, yet are adamant about maintaining the trappings of the old religion<<< Jesus should have stuck to the traditional doctrines and dogmas. You're right.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:58 PM (ZucvC)

59 From the Mormon Church's official website: Issues on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has felt compelled to take a firm stand include civil rights, MX missile testing in Utah, same-gender marriages, pornography, gambling and Utah alcohol laws. The Church does not extend reprimands or ecclesiastical punishment to persons who choose not to support its views on these issues. I personally think Harry Reid is motivated primarily or exclusively by partisan politics, and would loke nothing more than "to divide our society, to pit one against another." However, one can oppose homosexual marriage without supporting a Constitutional amendment or other particular political solutions. More pertinent to this discussion, the Church does not assert political infallibility and is not about to excommunicate people for disagreeing with it. If Reid had said "gay people ought to get married" or "people ought to have gay sex," the answer would probably be different.

Posted by: tml at June 08, 2006 05:10 PM (8zNVc)

60 It's probably obvious, but my post should read "... would like nothing ..." rather than "... would loke nothing ..."

Posted by: tml at June 08, 2006 06:33 PM (8zNVc)

61 Don't blame Reid for the same thing that Orrin Hatch did (partisan politics). Hatch was just lucky enough to be on the "right" side of the amendment proposal. Just wait, he'll have his turn soon enough. I'm sure the repubs got the fodder they were looking for. Whether or not it will work to their advantage remains to be seen.

Posted by: DCO at June 11, 2006 11:29 PM (ht8Md)

62 Hi there, Mormon here. Harry Reid appears to be a politician first and religious man second. He's walking a fine line. I'd love to know how he can reconcile his political position with what he supposedly believes to be right and true. Depending on how far he carries this thing, he could find himself on the outside looking in, but the Church won't excommunicate without grounds. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. For the Church's part: Members are never told how to vote, but they are encouraged TO vote and contact their elected officials to make their voices heard. Which side of the moral issue members fall on, how they vote, and what they say to their elected officials is entirely between themselves and God. The fact that Elder Nelson is in D.C. "helping" the Republicans by endorsing the signing of the Act, does not proclaim a partisan affiliation - he is most likely on assignment, trying to see that the country's best interests, as far as the Church views them, are being upheld.

Posted by: Natalie at June 12, 2006 05:54 PM (Y7vtK)

63 Who's to say that Reid doesn't have a better idea for the concept of "marriage protection." Maybe the amendment was flawed and not the concept. Maybe Harry and Orrin will put their heads together and come up with something that resembles bipartisan support.

Posted by: DCO at June 12, 2006 07:33 PM (ht8Md)

64 This case, like so many others, follows the pattern established by Joseph Smith, the first leader of the church who said: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." All the church is saying in this letter, (emphasized by the follow-up visit of a leader), is that the traditional family is something that the church teaches as being fundamental to the purpose of life itself, and something that therefore becomes of a moral nature. Since we happen to live in a society that allows its members the right to have a say in the direction that society goes, the church is simply saying that as a member of the church, and a member of a free society, if you care about the moral direction of the society, this is a matter about which you might want to make your voice heard. We are free, as is Harry Reid, to make our own choice as to whether we will follow their counsel. Harry Reid would not be excommunicated for expressing his own views. This is exactly why critics of the church have such an empty argument against Mitt Romney running for president. Romney, Reid, Leavitt, or any other public servant is free to "express" himself in the matter he deems most appropriate,without being bound to do whatever the church dictates. Excommunication is a very different, and weighty process where those who have committed serious sins, or come out in open opposition to the church place in jeopardy their good standing in the church.

Posted by: val at June 13, 2006 10:20 PM (n2utH)

65 If the Church ex'd Harry for opposing the amendment, they would also have to ex all the politicians who were so slow to follow the church's counsel to exe the MX missile program. They'd also have to ex all the Utah state legislators who voted down the gun control bill that the church publicly supported a few years ago. Etc etc etc... Luckily, the church doesn't do this. All of you Mormons who are amazed at how Harry can reconcile his private and political convictions should go ask the same question to everyone in your ward that owns a business that's open on Sunday. Grow up. And if you think Orrin and Bob are morally unassailable, you're naive. And I will tell you this: a good friend of mine in Washington tells me that when the Church needs some help behind the scenes in the capitol, Harry is a much more valuable resource to them than Orrin or Bob.

Posted by: JG at June 14, 2006 09:40 AM (zuYJs)

66 Reid's position does oppose the LDS Church's official stand, make no mistake. This is significant when you think about what Mormons believe. To be clear Mormons believe that there is no difference when the prophet (President Hinckley) speaks than if the Lord has said it Himself. Therefore in the eyes of mormons the Lord has taken the position to support a constitutional amendment. In any society the family is the fundamental unit. Simple reason follows that what happens to the family will eventually happen to society because the family is society's building block. There are clearly enough studies that show that childern are best developed with a father and a mother. Therefore one must be extreemely concerned with the trivality that Reid has approached this subject, particualry in light of the extensive LDS doctrine regarding the centrality and import of the traditional family to God's plan and mankind's progression.

Posted by: Jon Duersch at June 14, 2006 09:03 PM (k65zk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As reported by Vinnie yesterday at The Jawa Report, Islamist militias with ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network have succeeded in taking over the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. It should never be forgotten that al Qaeda's first sucess was in fighting American troops in Mogadishu during the famous "Black Hawk down" incident.

Although not mentioned in the movie by the same name, Osama bin Laden later admitted that he had sent fighters into Somalia to help warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. Bin Laden, it is said, had had a mystic "vision" in which U.S. was revealed as a paper tiger & that American forces would withdraw from Somalia, defeated. When his "vision" came true, many came to think of bin Laden as a man with supernatural powers.

Thousands of U.S. troops are currently stationed in Djibouti, which borders Somalia to the north. Strategy Page (via Glenn) has the Somalia timeline.

We cannot afford to lose the Horn of Africa to Islamists.

Reuters:

The Islamic side, which supports sharia courts in Mogadishu, announced they controlled the city in radio broadcasts and public meetings. Both residents and some members of the warlords' own militia said the city was in Islamic hands.

"The era of warlords in Somalia is over," resident Mohamed Asser said. "This morning Mogadishu is under only one hand, the Islamic courts."

Today, protests erupted in the Somali capital over the new Islamist masters of the city. The protests, though, seem to be along tribal lines. Times:

Hundreds protested today against the Islamist takeover of the capital of Somalia....

At least 1,000 protesters, from the Abgal clan, a faction of the Hawiye tribe that used to control much of northern Mogadishu, rallied in a football stadium and on the streets.

"We want to establish an Abgal sub-clan defence line, politically and militarily," said Hussein Sheikh Ahmed, an Abgal leader. "Advances into Abgal territory should be halted immediately."

Today's protests, which were left unhindered by Islamist militias, came as the interim Somali Prime Minister, Mohamed Ali Gedi, congratulated the Muslim forces on taking control of the city.

Mr Gedi called the Islamist victory, which the US fears could lead to the development of a Taleban-style African state, "an excellent step forward" today, telling Radio France Internationale that the fallen warlords had been "hurting the reconciliation, stabilisation and pacification of Somalia".

More on why we should worry from All Africa:

Al Qaeda elements responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania and the 2002 attack on the Paradise Hotel in Kikambala near Mombasa have been moving in and out of Somalia with the aid of local sympathisers, according to US officials.

Preventing Somalia from becoming a second safe haven for al Qaeda has been a primary objective of American policy in the Horn of Africa ever since US forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001. The Afghan Islamist group had provided al Qaeda with the protection and resources needed to plot the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The theory goes that we should stabilize first, and then worry about al Qaeda sympathies later. Which, of course, is the same arguement I heard when Kabul was "liberated" by the Taliban. That "stability" was more important than the radical political philosophy of the group--which at the time no one really understood very well.

So, our covert proxy war in Somalia seems not to be working. But is the alternative the installatioin of another Taliban-like government in the Horn of Africa in the name of stability? Insanity!

Related: Kim at Wizbang: "As far as the Islamists are concerned, there is no Transitional Federal Charter of Somalia."

John at Op-For: "Another collapsed state that has the potential to turn into a big-time breeding ground. Somalia is starting to look alot like pre-Enduring Freedom Afghanistan." Indeed.

Malkin: Not Good.

Rule 308: "You want sharia? Have it, be my guests. But I bet you won't like it."

Sandbox: "True democracy cannot coexist with Sharia law."

If the Onion were half as funny as this, I'd subscribe.

This Boston Globe article reports on the covert operations the U.S. has been engaged in: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:04 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 8 kb.

Forget the "Omen" crap. June 6th, no matter what year, will always be a special day.

Soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you." - Gen. Eisenhower's Order of the Day

D-Day Casualties:

British: 3000

Canadian: 946

U.S.: 6,603

114 Allied planes

German: c.6,500

(figures above taken from Chronology of WWII: The Day By Day Record 1939-1945)

"Casualties" meaning a total of dead, wounded, and/or missing/captured. A good breakdown is here.

June 6th, 1944, has so many lessons to be taught. So many perspectives which are at odds with the perspectives about the war we're fighting now.

Rusty update: Blackfive has an excellent roundup on D-Day remembered.

Fellow MU.NUer Confederate Yankee has reprinted Patton's Normandy Invasion speach.

(via Blogfather)

Ronald Reagan's tribute to D-Day (video)

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:29 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 2 kb.

First off, a personal aside. I know what the long range strategy says, but it still pains me to see "U.S. backed" in front of "Somali militia." Seeing our dead being dragged through the streets gave me a Ramses attitude towards Somalia.

You know, the part where it says "and still Pharaoh's heart was hardened."

Anyway, it seems Mogadishu has been captured by the Islamists.

I found this the most interesting part:

"It is exactly the same thing that happened with the rise to power of the Taliban" in
Afghanistan, he said, adding that the extremists are "using the people's weariness of violence, rape and civil war" to gain support for a government based on Islamic law.

Of course, once Islamic law is established, the people will rejoice in the violence, rape, and uncivil war that Sharia brings.

This is pure idle historical speculation on my part, but Somalia may shape up to be a repeat of Iraq. We should have marched to Baghdad in the first Gulf War and removed Saddam, and we should have exacted fierce retribution after the Battle of Modadishu aka Blackhack Down.

But, Mark Steyn says it best:

A superpower that wallows in paranoia and glorifies self-loathing cannot endure and doesn't deserve to.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:40 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Good grief.

That's about all I have to say. Well, I could say more, but this is a PG-13 blog.

BTW, next to mine and the missus', Plains Feeder is my favorite home state blog. I read it every day, you should give it a look-see often.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:43 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the Canadian Jihadis arrested for plotting terrorist acts has been linked to the former cyberterrorist #1, Irhabi 007 (Irhabi translated means terrorist). You may remember Irhabi 007 from our previous lengthy discussions about the cyber jihad.

Irhabi 007 was a frequent poster at the Islamist mesage board Ansarnet. He first came to our attention after he posted a video of the beheading murder of Jack Hensley at the forum. He was banned from the forum, not for posting the beheading video, but for asking for money to cover his bandwidth costs!

Irhabi 007 was the greatest distributor of al Qaeda in Iraq propaganda videos on the internet for some time. Irhadi 007 is probably best known in the U.S. for the time he hacked the Arkansas State Department of Highways and used their server to distribute jihadi material.

Eventually, though, he got sloppy and was caught by British authorities as part of a three man cell of terrorists. Irhab 007 turned out to be Younis Tsouli, a 22 year old from West London. Tsouli has also been linked to terror plots in Bosnia, Sweden, Turkey and Holland.

So, the Canadian jihadis have been linked to both a British and American terrorist cell. What is the common thread? Internet forums dedicated to the Religion of Peace.

More background from Chad at In the Bullpen here and Allahpundit here.
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 5 kb.

This is funny because it's indicative of the 'we support the military, just not the war' type of latte drinking liberal. From Sean in RI:

I went into the local B&N to do some reading this weekend. When I walked in the greater said hello to the people in front and asked them to join the B&N club.

When it was my turn to be greeted the nice lady looked me over and suddenly became busy fixing the books behind her. Didn't really think much of it because I hate greeters as much as the perfume spraying terrorists in mall stores. Next couple behind me got the greeters perky treatment, which made me look back to see if her books were all in odder or what.

Then it dawned on me, I got profiled. I was wearing my Army T-shirt, and a hat that said Hard Rock Cafe Saigon. The profile I matched, conservative former military Republican.

Now my question to you is should I go back in the same gear or go back dressed as a whiny liberal? This kind of burns my ass, I did all told between Marines and Army National Guard 14 years service, and this is the way some one showing any signs of supporting the military gets treated?

But that just might be my subconcience need for the undying approval of my intellectual & moral superiors on the Left.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:18 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the UK has declared that any Muslim company which sells Israeli products is "treacherously supporting Israel". And thus we how Muslims cajole and harass any and all who do not toe the "Israel is evil" party line.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:08 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

I have no problem blaming Canada for pretty much anything. Let's face it, picking on Canada is just fun. But is it Canada's fault that so many young Muslims want to blow up Canada, Canadians, and Canadian shit? Of course it is! Well, at least that is how a good portion of the modern Left sees it.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

That giant sucking sound you hear is The Jawa Report moving its corporate headquarters to Mexico.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a shocker, former Rep. Pete McCloskey of California is being forced to return $2,100 he received from a man being investigated for helping fund al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. What possible reason could the terror supporter have for giving money to McCloskey? It seems that McCloskey bellieves that the Jews just have way too much power.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

An American, a Canadian, and six Britons have been freed in Nigeria. Authorities declined to say whether a ransom was paid or not---which is a polite way of saying, yes, we paid ransom. Expect more hostage taking in Nigeria as this is turning into a lucrative business opportunity.

CBC News:

Eight foreign oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria — including a Canadian — were released Sunday, a local government spokesman said.

"All the hostages have been released. They are with the governor [of Bayelsa state] now," said Ekiyor Welson, a spokesman for the state in the southern Niger Delta region where the eight were kidnapped from an offshore oil rig on Friday.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Via LGF, the Telegraph reports:

Senior police sources said they were searching for an "improvised device rather than a sophisticated weapon" capable of releasing chemicals. The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that intelligence obtained by MI5 suggested that terrorists were trying to acquire material via the internet which could be used to develop a nerve gas capable of killing and injuring thousands of people.

Security sources say that the terrorist threat facing Britain has developed into a "covert conspiracy" involving hundreds of men and women living ordinary lives in the nation's suburbs. They form an estimated 1,200 strong "army" of terrorists believed to be involved in at least 20 major terrorist plots.

Scotland Yard and MI5 sources were playing down reports in the media yesterday that they were looking for a "chemical vest", which could be used by a suicide bomber. The wearer would suffer a long and painful death.

Detectives believe it is more likely that sarin or an alternative nerve agent would be released from a canister or flask.

File it under Incidents, Isolated.

Related: AP is reporting that the Canadian Isolated Incident was the result of a clever sting.

Original post.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:36 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently stung by recent criticism citing a lack of balance in the selection of letters to the editor, the Syracuse Post-Standard in its Sunday edition suggested that readers telephone the conservative reader who raised the issue.

From the Editor's note (emphasis added):

A close reading of last Sunday's Feedback response would make clear that Richard Lindsay has earned his record as "most prolific" from the number of letters he writes, not the number published. Just because we say it, does that make it true? Here's more specific information: Lindsay sent us four letters dated May 26; two more dated May 27; two dated May 28; two dated May 29. And so on. Still don't believe us? Why not give him a call?

Apart from the accusations of editorial bias in the selection of letters (members of the Syracuse Peace Council do seem to be pretty successful at getting their visceral hatred of the President published), why Lindsay, a conservative who often disagrees with the Post-Standard's left-leaning editorial policies, is singled out for criticism for being "prolific" is a mystery. Apparently, prolific liberal letter writers are concerned citizens, while prolific conservative letter writers are cranks.

In any case, for a daily newspaper to encourage its readers to harass a man for stating his opinions is irresponsible and outrageous, and seems more driven by pique than reasoned counter-argument.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:16 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

My home blog, but not my post.

You rock, Muslihoon.

UPDATE: For some reason, probably due to the latest DOS attack, I've lost the last couple of day's posts. They just up and disappeared.

Posted by: Vinnie at 01:01 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Got me, it's from France.

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:41 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I read a lot of the Arab, Muslim, and extreme Left press. If I had a dollar for every time they accused American troops of committing "attrocities", "massacres", and "war crimes", then I'd be a very rich man.

How often do these groups make such accusations? Every time a civilian in Iraq is caught in the crossfire and killed. Every. Single. Time.

These groups already know what American troops are reallly like.

The most sympathetic opinion of our troops from these groups is that they are children. They do these bad things not because they are bad people, but because Bush-hitler and co. have put them in a bad situation.

Our childlike troops--who really signed up so they could go to college but were tricked and drafted into fighting a war for Haliburton's gain--snap every time an IED goes off and indiscriminately kill civilians.

The least sympathetic opinion of our troops, especially prevalent among Islamist sources, is that our troops like to kill Arabs. You know, it's just fun.

So, with this view of American troops in mind, every time a civilian gets killed in Iraq, it is our fault. It's not the fault of the terrorists who use mosques as command-and-control centers. It's not the fault of insurgents who--contrary to the Geneva Conventions--try to hide their identities by blending in with the local population. It's not the fault of these minute-men who fire on U.S. troops from the roofs, from the alleys, and from the windows of civilian homes.

No, it's always the fault of the U.S. troops.

So, when I hear that U.S. troops have been cleared in the alleged massacre at Ishaqi, I can't help to think about Haditha.

What do we really know about Haditha? So far, the allegations seem par for the course. The usual accusations. Civilians were killed and Americans must have massacred them.

But word massacre has a distinct connatation. It implies that American troops intentionally killed civilians. That civilians were rounded up and shot, or that our Marines went room to room methodically murdering children.

What we know is only that civilians were killed. What we know is that Marines originally reported that they were killed by a roadside bomb, but that those Marines later reported that they were killed in crossfire.

This is the major cover-up of a massacre that I've been hearing about?

We have dead bodies. The dead bodies reveal that the civilians were shot. But, isn't that what we've already known for some time now? That civilians were shot?

The only questions that remain, then, are two-fold. First, what were the Marines motives? That is, did they intentionally kill these civilians, or were they shot accidentally? Either in cross-fire, or because the Marines were careless.

If the former, then we do have a massacre. These civilinas were murdered.

But if the latter, then at worst we have some careless Marines who ought to be jailed for negligient homicide or not following the rules of engagement. Which is equally tragic, but far more mundane explanation than a massacre. It's also far more likely.

The second question is about the alleged "cover-up" and, according to Rep. Murtha, "how high it went." Of course, to the far Left it doesn't really matter how high up it went, because in their minds, it always goes up to the Sec. of Defense or the President of the United States. So, the real motivation here is not to get at the truth, but to score political points.

What we know is that an NCO filed an erroneous field report. There is no evidence--none--that even a single officer knew the report was wrong.

Will it turn out that Haditha was a massacre in its true sense? Did Marines go on a rampage murdering women and children? Maybe. As I've said in the past, if this is the case, I personally volunteer for the firing squad.

But since I've heard these accusations so many times before, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:44 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 4 kb.

A Russian diplomat was murdered and four embassy workers were taken hostage in Iraq today. It's not entirely clear if this is the act of terrorsists trying to make a political statement or if it is the work of criminals attempting to make money---or a combination of both.

Some sources indicate that the four may have already been rescued. We hope that this is the case.

We pray for the immediate release of these men.

WaPo:

Gunmen ambushed a Russian diplomatic car in Baghdad on Saturday afternoon, killing tne diplomat and kidnapping four others, Iraqi police and the Russian embassy reported.

The car came under attack from armed men in two cars in the Mansour neighborhood of western Baghdad, police Col. Sami Hassan said. An opening fusillade of gunfire killed one embassy worker. When the shooting brought the convoy to a halt, the gunmen kidnapped four others, Hassan said. Iraqi security forces cordoned off the area and began a search for the missing diplomats.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.