Archive for Christians

Despite beheadings and kidnappings some Christians escape ISIS

Posted in ISIS with tags , , on February 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

Sadly, according to the Daily Beast, ISIS forces have kidnapped at least 90 Christians from Syrian villages, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The abductions took place in a rural village near the town of Tel Tamr in the northeastern part of the country, the monitoring group said. ISIS reportedly seized the Assyrian Christians as they retreated during a Kurdish offensive. ISIS has targeted Christian communities many times during its gruesome reign of terror. Just a few days ago, ISIS released a video that appeared to show the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.

Franklin Graham on Iraq Persecuted Christians

Posted in Christian, Christian Martyrs, ISIS, persecution with tags , , , , , on August 25, 2014 by saynsumthn

Fresh graves of murdered Iraqi Christians:

Fresh Graves

Fresh Graves 2

Todd Starnes: Military commander says Christians a threat to national security

Posted in Homeland Security with tags , , , , , , on April 10, 2013 by saynsumthn

UPDATE:

The Pentagon has admitted that information used in an Army briefing that labeled the American Family Association (AFA) as a domestic hate group was not acquired from official sources and does not reflect Army doctrine.

Meanwhile, the president of the well-respected Christian ministry says his organization may file a defamation lawsuit against the military.

“We are probably going to be taking legal action,” said Tim Wildmon, president of one of the nation’s most prominent Christian ministries. “The Army has smeared us. They’ve defamed the American Family Association.”

Todd Starnes writes,

George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, tells me the slide was not produced by the Army and it does not reflect their policy or doctrine.

“It was produced by a soldier conducting a briefing which included info acquired from an Internet search,” Wright said. “Info was not pulled from official Army sources, nor was it approved by senior Army leaders, senior equal opportunity counselors or judge-advocate personnel.”

Wright said the briefing has been updated and any references to American Family Association have been removed.

“The soldier, after being challenged on the information, recognized that the information was incorrect,” he said. “Soldiers who attended the briefing will be notified that the information regarding AFA was incorrect.”

Wildmon said he doesn’t believe the Army’s excuse.

“We’re hearing from too many people across the country who’ve witnessed these training sessions,” he said. “We know this is going on in the Army and the Air Force.”

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute, is representing the AFA. He said it’s a case of “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

“The Army is going to have to fess up,” he said. “For them to keep saying there are just a bunch of rogue instructors out there is either evidence they have a massive disciplinary problem or they are full of baloney.”

It’s not the first time the Army has accused conservative Christian groups of being domestic hate groups.

______________________
A U.S. Army officer sent an email to dozens of subordinates listing the American Family Association and Family Research Council as “domestic hate groups” because they oppose homosexuality — and warned officers to monitor soldiers who might be supporters of the groups.

“Just want to ensure everyone is somewhat educated on some of the groups out there that do not share our Army Values,” read an email from Lt. Col. Jack Rich to three dozen subordinates at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. “When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was disturbed by the contents of the email.

“It’s very disturbing to see where the Obama Administration is taking the military and using it as a laboratory for social experimentation — and also as an instrument to fundamentally change the culture,” he said. “The message is very clear – if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible, who believes in transcendent truth, there is no place for you in the military.”

The Army denied there is any attack on Christians or those who hold religious beliefs.

“The notion that the Army is taking an anti-religion or anti-Christian stance is contrary to any of our policies, doctrines and regulations,” said George Wright, Army spokesman at the Pentagon. “Any belief that the Army is out to label religious groups in a negative manner is without warrant.”
Wright said they are checking into the origin of the email. At this point it’s unclear who ordered the email to be sent and why.
The 14-page email documented groups the military considers to be anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Among the other groups mentioned are Neo-Nazis, Racist Skinheads, White Nationalists and the Ku Klux Klan.

read rest

According to Clash Daily.com:

They recently received a letter from one of law enforcement’s finest. He had attended a seminar in which he was told to be on the lookout for Christians. The letter was written by an attendee, Ron Trowbridge, Undersheriff in Prowers County, Colorado. I would like to thank Sheriff Trowbridge for the letter and the 25 years he has spent protecting the public in his county. Fear of reprisals from either the Colorado State Police and Homeland Security, fail to stop this patriot from exposing what our law officers are being subjected to.

Because of his bravery, we are able to get an inside look on how nefarious forces within our government are attempting to indoctrinate our law officers. As this letter proves, our officers cannot be intimidated. Nor can they be turned on the people they serve. The people of Prowers County are very lucky to have him.
Without further delay, here is the letter unedited and complete in it’s original form:

From: rtrowbridge@prowerscounty.net To: forknown@hotmail.com Subject: CSP Training Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:30:22 -0600

On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP). The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say. The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers. There were about 20 people in attendance.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens. Kluczynski spent most of his two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn to the sovereign citizen movement. Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign citizen views. Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”. Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”

While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement. Kluczynski explained why he believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president. When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame, Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to be controlled by law enforcement. Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.

Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC). CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP. Kluczynski said he gets his information from the Department of Homeland Security. Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security. I thought he was perfect for the job.

Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office

The Defense Department came under fire in April of 2013 for a U.S. Army Reserve presentation that classified Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as “extremist” religious groups alongside al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan.

The presentation detailed a number of extremist threats within the U.S. military, including white supremacist groups, street gangs, and religious sects.

The presentation identified seventeen religious organizations in a slide titled “religious extremism.” They include al Qaeda, Hamas, the Filipino separatist group Abu Sayyaf, and the Ku Klux Klan, which the slide identifies as a Christian organization.

DOD Religious Extremism Pg 24

“Religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world,” the slide explains, in language that closely resembles the text of a Wikipedia page on “extremism.”

While outfits such as al Qaeda and the KKK are explicitly violent, the presentation also lists Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism as extremist groups.

More than half of all Americans identify themselves as members of those two Christian denominations.

Read more on how Homeland Security and the Government is labeling pro-lifers and Christians as terrorists (Here) and (Here)

Religion of Peace? Christians and Muslims clash in Michigan stones are thrown, Police turn blind eye to violence

Posted in Christian, Islam with tags , , , , , , , on June 26, 2012 by saynsumthn

Even if you think the protesters at this Muslim Fair in Dearborn Michigan, antagonized the Muslims, should the police ignore the stoning and violence?

Read One Report Here

If you attended this event and want to add your personal comment, please do. Video is powerful, But I also realize that it can be edited.

The tolerance of Christians and Conservatives for haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Posted in Abortion, Ayn Rand, Conservative, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

Below is a great piece and worth reading: Come on people WAKE UP !

The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer
Jun 22, 2011 / H/T First Things Written By Joe Carter

Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer has the looks of a stereotypical college professor. You would never be able to tell simply by his unassuming persona that his mind holds some of the most controversial ideas in American academia.

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).

If he were a high school teacher, one might expect his views would raise parental concerns about his fitness to instruct on matters ethical. But Singer is a college professor, and so must wait the three months between high school graduation and college to begin proffering his worldview to students beginning to form theirs.

Academic ivory towers are increasingly tolerant of psychopathy masquerading as philosophy, which accounts for the Australian philosopher’s appointments at elite universities on three continents. He currently is the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

Despite the fact that Singer champions an incoherent and inconsistent philosophy—he’s the Ivy League equivalent of Ayn Rand—he’s been eerily influential. He has served as editor for prestigious philosophy journals, appeared on numerous television programs, and even penned the entry on ethics for Encyclopedia Britannica. The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had “more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell,” and The New Yorker called him the most influential philosopher alive. His most dubious distinction, though, may be his inspiration of animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk to start People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (The next time you see a celebrity posing nude to raise awareness about the dignity of chinchillas, you’ll know who to blame.)

Perhaps this unwarranted notoriety is why so many otherwise serious people—including far too many Christians—feel that Singer must be treated as a formidable thinker. The University of Oxford even held a conference last month called “Christian Ethics Engages Peter Singer.” Had the conference title ended with “In a Bout of Zulu Stick Fighting” it might have worth attending. Instead, it offered the usual tropes of academic politics—engaging in conversation “at once charitable and candid with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought.”

The Guardian reports that the dialogue “was striking for its agreements, particularly the common cause that can be made between Christians and utilitarians when tackling global poverty, animal exploitation and climate change.”

However, it was on the last issue that the conference demonstrated real philosophical interest too. Singer admitted that his brand of utilitarianism – preference utilitarianism – struggles to get to grips with the vastness of the problem of climate change. Further, there is an element that comes naturally to Christian ethics that his ethics might need in order to do so. It has to do with whether there are moral imperatives that can be held as objectively true.

Climate change is a challenge to utilitarianism on at least two accounts. First, the problem of reducing the carbon output of humanity is tied to the problem of rising human populations. The more people there are, the greater becomes the difficulty of tackling climate change. This fact sits uneasily for a preference utilitarian, who would be inclined to argue that the existence of more and more sentient beings enjoying their lives – realising their preferences – is a good thing. As Singer puts it in the new edition of his book, Practical Ethics: “I have found myself unable to maintain with any confidence that the position I took in the previous edition – based solely on preference utilitarianism – offers a satisfactory answer to these quandaries.”

One of the most “charitable and candid” things that can be said about Singer is that he may not truly believe some of his arguments’ conclusions. His decision to scrap his entire philosophical stance because it interferes with his views on climate change is just, one supposes, “Singer being Singer.” Tossing out a controversial premise but refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion is his modus operandi. It’s as if he enjoys the gasps of horror heard while he gives a sly wink that signals even he is not outlandish enough to believe such nonsense. For example, Singer has claimed that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” He later adds that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Killing a child, in his view, is only wrong inasmuch as it offends and hinders the wishes of its parents.

He also advocates euthanizing victims of dementia, since their care requires resources better used for more worthy purposes—perhaps honoraria for speakers at a conference on euthanasia. But when Singer’s own mother was stricken with Alzheimer’s, he claimed her situation was “different”: “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult.”

What makes Singer not just controversial, but dangerous, is that he is allowed to clear a path for those who will not be so squeamish about following his arguments to their logical conclusions. Singer may now, at the mature age of 65, finally be adopting a view of morality that most of us learned in kindergarten. But other preference utilitarians may not be so flexible—or as hesitant to act on their beliefs. By treating Singer’s irrational, immoral, and psychopathic views as if they were positions held by reasonable people, we are helping to normalize anti-rational ethics.

A couple of weeks ago I argued that those who make excuses for Ayn Rand are creating a climate in which gullible people who don’t know better may fall under her spell. “Are we willing to be held responsible,” I asked, “for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview?”

Some of the same people who nodded in agreement at that sentiment will now sputter that Singer must be held to a different standard. But why is that the case? It can’t be because his philosophical views are worth taking seriously—even Singer seems to recognize that his premises often lead to untenable conclusions. Why then do his academic peers treat him as an intellectual and philosophical equal?

In the past, some people thought he was a person whose ideas needed to be challenged (for example, Fr. Neuhaus debated Singer in 2002). However, it has long since become evident that Singer is neither intellectually honest (see the post below by Princeton professor Robert P. George) nor worthy of engaging. I suspect that many Christians who still consider him to be a thinker rather than an entertainer do so simply out of fear of being unpopular.

Too many Christians in academia are worried that if they dismiss Singer as unworthy of serious consideration, they’ll find themselves on the margins of academic life. While they safely ignore the cranks on the fringe—racial supremacists, anti-Semites, Objectivists—they feel compelled to respect a man who holds views that, if realized, would make Saddam Hussein look benign. Would his peers treat him so if he held tenure at Podunk State rather than the alma mater of James Madison, John Rawls, and Brooke Shields?

While it is necessary to consider and debate unpopular views, there should be a minimum standard for ethical discourse whether on the elementary playground or in the lecture halls of Princeton. There are certain moral issues that are all but universally recognized as self-evidently wrong by those in possession of rational faculties. Rape is wrong, torturing babies for fun is objectively morally bad, and the Holocaust was not just a violation of utilitarian ethic, but an event of grave moral evil. If someone cannot meet this basic requirement, they can safely be ignored, regardless of where they received a paycheck.

For far too many years, Singer’s ill-conceived sophistry has been considered and debated by some of our country’s best minds. It’s time to end such silliness. Let’s assign a sophomore philosophy student to rebut his arguments and the rest of academia can move on to squashing the bad ideas being championed by morally and intellectually serious people.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of FIRST THINGS and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That was a Great Piece and I thank Joe Carter for exposing the Christian/ Conservative hypocrisy on tolerating haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Just listen to Peter Singer bash Christianity and push abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights the read how Ayn Rand pushed the same and attacked Christianity as well:

I wrote this piece recently exposing how Conservatives support the pro-abortion/ Christian hating Ayn Rand:

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Fifty-four years after it was published, with sales of the book at 6.5 million copies and counting, Ayn Rand’s 1,000-page magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged” is finally coming to the screen. The $10 million production, part one of a projected trilogy, featuring a no-name cast (Taylor Schilling? Grant Bowler?) and financed entirely by John Aglialoro, a Philadelphia businessman.

“Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s prescient, unabashedly pro-free market capitalism novel, hits theaters April 15. Its timing could not be better.
The Daily Caller writes, Not only is the film a winner for holding firm to Randian philosophy, it also brazenly and refreshingly brings a political perspective that is almost universally absent from the big screen; so much so in fact it could become a cult classic, especially among Tea Partiers and their admirers, not to mention hordes of libertarians.

But, what is missing from most reviews is an in-depth look at the pro-abortion and hateful anti-religious philosophies of Atlas Shrugged’s author, Ayn Rand.

The National Review reports that , Conservatives with ties to the tea party are hoping a new movie version of a 1957 novel will help fuel their 21st century political movement.

And the Conservative watchdog group, the Heritage Foundation, promoted heavily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, as scheduled a special screening of the film. Even FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has undertaken a massive campaign to push the movie into as many theaters as possible. So far, they’ve lined up 63 for opening day in major cities nationwide; FreedomWorks hopes to push that number to 300.

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mile Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

the question remains, will “Conservatives” cover-up this outrageous side of Rand in their effort to “save Capitalism” or will they expose it? To be determined……

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

NPR Execs attack Christians and Jews in undercover sting, calls themselves, “National Palestinian Radio”

Posted in Anti-Christian Bigotry, Anti-Semitism, Christian, Islam, Israel, Media Bias, NPR with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 8, 2011 by saynsumthn

UPDATE 3/9/2011: NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns After Board Decides She Should Go

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned after NPR’s board of directors decided that she could no longer effectively lead the organization.

This follows yesterday’s news that then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) was videotaped slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding during a lunch with men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O’Keefe on a “sting.”)

Vivian Schiller quickly condemned Ron Schiller’s comments, and he moved up an already-announced decision to leave NPR and resigned effective immediately. But Ron Schiller’s gaffe followed last fall’s dismissal of NPR political analyst Juan Williams, for which Vivian Schiller came under harsh criticism and NPR’s top news executive, Ellen Weiss, resigned.

NPR just sent this statement from NPR Board of Directors Chairman Dave Edwards to its staff and member stations:

“It is with deep regret that I tell you that the NPR Board of Directors has accepted the resignation of Vivian Schiller as President and CEO of NPR, effective immediately.

“The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years.

“Vivian brought vision and energy to this organization. She led NPR back from the enormous economic challenges of the previous two years. She was passionately committed to NPR’s mission, and to stations and NPR working collaboratively as a local-national news network.

“According to a CEO succession plan adopted by the Board in 2009, Joyce Slocum, SVP of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Interim CEO. The Board will immediately establish an Executive Transition Committee that will develop a timeframe and process for the recruitment and selection of new leadership.

“I recognize the magnitude of this news – and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR’s leadership team.”

Senior Executives at NPR meet with Muslim Brotherhood Front Group to solicit $5mm and discuss their federal funding, Fanatical Christians, Zionists in the media, Tea Partiers, Republicans, Uneducated Americans and Juan Williams.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation Part I, posted with vodpod

Ronald Schiller was recorded secretly by James O’Keefe, according to The New York Times. O’Keefe, who released the NPR video today, is the man behind the video that took down ACORN, in a secretly recorded video in 2009 that led to the grass-roots community organizing group being stripped of its federal funding.

In the latest video, Schiller tells people posing as Muslims that supporters of the Tea Party are “seriously racist, racist people” and that the Republican Party has been “hijacked” by the Tea Party.

Schiller also says NPR “would be better off in the long run without federal funding” and is heard laughing when someone jokes that NPR should be known as “National Palestinian Radio.”

Dana Davis Rehm, NPR’s senior vice president of marketing, communications and external relations, denounced Schiller’s comments in a statement.

“We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for,” the statement said.

Muslims get access to fair for education, but when Christians attended Muslim fair they were arrested

Posted in Christian, Civil Rights, free speech, Islam with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 25, 2010 by saynsumthn

August 2010
A Minnesota group will try to educate fair-goers about the Muslim religion.

Volunteers with the Islamic Circle of North America say they will hand out cards titled “Islam Explained” because they want people to know what it means to be Muslim. While the group doesn’t have a licensed booth space to operate on the fairgrounds, it can still take advantage of the crowds. The group will be stationed outside gates 10 and 20.

The group says the outreach effort in Minnesota has nothing to do with the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, which has caused national controversy.

St. Paul police tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS the volunteers can hand out literature on the sidewalks as long as they don’t block the sidewalks.

The group also has radio ads that will start airing Monday. Those ads will include a number people can call to ask questions about Islam.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Muslims get access to fair for education, but w…, posted with vodpod

However, a recent Press Release from: The Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced it is representing all four of the Christian missionaries. Police told Christians they’d have to go 5 BLOCKS away from an Muslim festival to distribute Gospel tracks.

ANN ARBOR, MI – Must see videos. Two videos dramatically describe how Sharia law is being enforced in Dearborn, Michigan where Dearborn Police Officers arrested four Christian missionaries. The missionaries explain in their own words what happened.

The first video documents the actual arrest of some of the missionaries. Later in the video the missionaries give an account of the events leading up to their arrest and overnight detention.

On Saturday, the missionaries attempted to peacefully distribute copies of the Gospel of John outside the entrance to the Arab festival. Within three minutes, the Christians were surrounded by eight Dearborn police officers and ordered to cease and desist. These events were also captured on video Below:

In what some have described as police enforcement of Sharia law at the annual Dearborn Arab International Festival, last Friday night (6/18/2010) Dearborn Police Officers arrested four Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras which were recording the events surrounding their arrests. The Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced it is representing all of the Christian missionaries.

Arrested on charges of Breach of the Peace are: Negeen Mayel, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, and David Wood. Mayel, an eighteen year old female, whose parents emigrated from Afghanistan and a recent convert from Islam to Christianity, was also charged with failure to obey a police officer’s orders. She was approximately 100 feet away and videotaping a discussion with some Muslims when her camera was seized.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “These Christian missionaries were exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, but apparently the Constitution carries little weight in Dearborn, where the Muslim population seems to dominate the political apparatus. It’s apparent that these arrests were a retaliatory action over the embarrassing video of the strong arm tactics used last year by Festival Security Guards. This time, the first thing police officers did before making the arrests was to confiscate the video cameras in order to prevent a recording of what was actually happening.”

Thompson continued, “Contrary to the comments made by Police Chief Ron Haddad, our Constitution does not allow police to ban the right of free speech just because there are some hecklers. Not all police officers approve of the way their department treated these Christians.”

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel with the Law Center in charge of the case, yesterday faxed a letter to Chief Haddad demanding that the three video cameras and tapes illegally seized from the missionaries be immediately returned.

The Law Center is also representing Pastor George Saeig who was prohibited by the Festival and Police authorities from distributing religious material at last year’s festival. That case is ongoing.

Here is the 2009 incident:


______________________________________________________________