"Those that surrender tamely are finished."

"Nations that go down fighting shall rise up again;
those that surrender tamely are finished."

As hagiography does, it just doesn't get any better than the HBO biopic about Winston Churchill, Into the Storm. It might be cliche, but it must be said that this is stirring stuff indeed.

Even if you are familiar with the historical facts, it is still a shock to the system to watch such a convincing portrayal of England's Darkest/Finest Hour. Two hundred thousand British soldiers were trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk at the end of May, 1940. It was feared that the vast majority of them would be either killed or captured by the advancing Nazi armies. If that happened, Hitler would have uncontested control of all of Europe. And if that had happened, well, it could very well have changed everything.

But somehow the British managed to not only evacuate their own troops, but also nearly 150,000 French troops as well. It was at this point that Churchill delivered one of the great speeches not only of the 20th century, but of all modern history and arguably of all time:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

The heart of this film, directed by Thaddeus O'Sullivan, is the masterful weaving of Churchill's words together with unfolding historical events that called those words forth. And it is Brendan Gleeson, playing the lead role, who makes those words come to life. Gleeson's performance is staggeringly good, and he won a well deserved Emmy for it.

The quote at the very top of this post ("Nations that go down fighting ...") is actually apocryphal. It is supposed to come from a cabinet meeting in May of 1940, but there is no precise record of what Churchill said at that meeting.

Here is another quote, but one that is not apocryphal. It is from Churchill's six volume History of the Second World War, and it is also inscribed on the pediment of the statue of Churchill in Fulton, Missouri:

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

Blasphemy, Part Deux

"Isn’t it a little too much to have tolerance and delicate forbearance preached by what is intolerance and cruelty itself?"
[from Religion: A Dialogue,
by Arthur Schopenhauer, 1889]

Islam is a religion that was founded by proud warriors on horseback. It is a religion whose adherents have conquered vast empires, and, in so doing, have spread their faith to the far corners of the earth, including, at one time, over one third of Europe. It is a religion in which it is considered an honor to be called "Saifullah", or "The Sword of Allah," and in which the sword is a commonly encountered religious symbol. It is the religion that gave us the word "Assassin."

So why do so many moden day Muslims insist on acting like hypersensitive drama queens and whining crybabies? Instead of behaving like reasoning, self-respecting, civilized human beings with their own centuries-long cultural tradition, the slightest imagined offense causes them to descend into bloodthirsty savagery. And then the ones who aren't raging and rioting (or blowing things up or cutting people's heads off on youtube) expect to be congratulated and praised as "moderates" and "bridge-builders" -- even while they demand that the rest of the world refrain from provoking the non-bridge-building-non-moderates -- or else.

In the West we are fortunate to have the freedom to not only question and criticize, but to openly condemn, mock and ridicule individual religions, as well as Religion itself. Historically, Christianity has been the most common, but certainly not the only, target of this kind of decidedly unwanted attention. And no one should be under any illusions about what Christians think of having their religion critiqued, let alone mocked, whether this is done with accompanying fart jokes on South Park, or with National Endowment for the Arts funding and hung in a museum, or put to music and posted on teh inernets, or performed by stand-up comics getting a cheap laugh out of pedophilia, or in the form of t-shirts worn by frat-boys (or the thongs they buy for their girlfriends), or on the bumper of the car in front of you on the way to work, etc, etc.

There has, in fact, been significant and determined resistance from Christians to any and all forms of criticism directed against them and their faith. There have been frequent attempts, up to today, to silence and punish those who dare to criticize Christianity. Sometimes these attempts are even successful, but for the most part we have succeeded in establishing, in principle, the right to think and say whatever we want on matters of religion. And that is a good thing. For everyone.

In particular, it's a good thing for Christians themselves, for they have often been the target of the most vicious persecution intended to silence criticism within Christianity. But the days of heretic-hunting are over, and now Christians enjoy the right not only to voice criticisms of their own religion among themselves, but even to turn against Christianity altogether and leave it behind. And only when that freedom is real and solidly established can people genuinely be considered true Christians in their hearts, for, as Samuel Butler wrote (sometime around 1670):

He that complies against his will
Is of the same opinion still.

Despite the fact that a great many of their coreligionists have given evidence to the contrary, there are Christians who have come to understand and appreciate that it is essential for a person to be truly free to reject Christianity in order to freely choose Christianity. When will the followers of Islam come to a similar understanding? When will they cease to debate amongst themselves what the proper punishment for apostasy should be, with the most commonly accepted answer to that question, and the one traditionally espoused in mainstream Islam throughout its history, being death?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf very recently acknowledged the importance of just this kind of freedom, when he spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations this Monday, September 13, 2010:

In America, we do protect these differences. We protect different expressions of faith. We assemble in our various houses of worship to pray, to chant, to recite our sacred scriptures, or simply to come together in communion and draw together and draw strength as a community. But religion in America is not imposed on us: We can be as devout or as agnostic as we like.

That choice -- to be or not to be religious, or anything else for that matter -- forced me to think about who I was, who I am, what I truly wanted and chose to be; and has given me a profound appreciation for the country that provides these freedoms. In that sense, you could say that I found my faith in this country. So for me, Islam and America are organically bound together.

But this is not my story alone. The American way of life has helped many Muslims make a conscious decision to embrace their faith. That choice, ladies and gentlemen, is precious, and that is why America is precious.

Unfortunately, Rauf dances around the real issue with a wink and a nod. After all, hadn't he just returned from a whirlwind tour of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates? Did it occur to him to talk up this "precious" freedom, the kind of genuine religious freedom that is only possible when there is the freedom to reject Islam, or any other religion, or all religions whatsoever? Rauf has never been shy about criticizing the West and the US in particular, even going so far as to condemn America for having so much "Muslim blood" on our hands. But where is his condemnation of the real oppressors of the Islamic peoples of the world: the societies where Muslims live under their own self-imposed ideological totalitarianism?

In the case of Bahrain, for example, the introduction of a limited amount of "democracy" in recent years has led to less religious freedom, as rival Islamist parties compete for popular support by attempting to outdo each other with proposals for ever more medieval theocratic legislation, such as the newly approved law prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery!

Imam Rauf wonders why people don't trust him. Maybe it is because he only praises religious freedom when he is safely on American soil, and even then only as a ploy to try to dampen opposition to his dream of constructing a lavish monument to Islam at the site of Islamism's greatest and bloodiest modern victory. And anything Rauf says about America's religious freedom these days is just an asterisk next to his incessant accusations that we are, in fact, a nation of Neonazi Islamophobic bigots.

The truth of the matter is that for all of his pretended appreciation of the "preciousness" of the freedom "to be as devout or agnostic as we like", Imam Rauf and his "progressive" cheerleaders have already succeeded in seriously eroding an essential component of that freedom: the freedom to criticize Islam in America.

On Monday (Sept. 13 -- the same day imam Rauf addressed the Council on Foreign Relations) the New Jersey Transit Authority announced that they had fired Derek Fenton (who had worked there for eleven years) because he had publicly burned pages from a Koran on September 11th near Ground Zero. The Transit Authority stated that: "Mr. Fenton’s public actions violated New Jersey Transit’s code of ethics."

New Jersey Governor, Republican Chris Christie, has publicly voiced his support for the decision to punitively fire Fenton for exercising his Constitutional rights. The mainsteam media has completely ignored the story of Fenton's firing, which has led some right-wingers to point out the glaring contrast between Fenton's invisibility and the attention lavished on Colorado teacher Jay Bennish, who was fired for comparing then US President George W. Bush to former German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Bennish's story not only received prominent coverage, but it was consistently portrayed in the media as a cut and dried "free speech" case in which Bennish was clearly in the right, or at least well within his rights, Constitutionally speaking. (Bennish was eventually reinstated.)

And then yesterday (Thursday, September 16) word spread that Molly Norris, the young cartoonist who had gained world-wide attention when she proposed the idea proclaiming May 20th as "International Everbody Draw Muhammad Day", had gone into hiding after having received warnings from the FBI that she was in danger.

Norris now joins with good company: Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan, Sooreh Hera, Ehsan Jami. The truly frightening thing is, though, that in the past people who were threatened by the Religion of Peace used to flee to the United States for their safety! But now even American citizens are being forced to go into hiding, move to someplace where no one knows them, change their identities .....

Meanwhile, Imam Rauf & Co. continue to advise us, like the good "moderates" they are, to do exactly as the extremists demand, so that no one gets hurt. And even though he now claims to understand that the idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero was a mistake, Rauf also claims that he is powerless to move his $100M mosque, for fear of unleashing a savage outburst of attacks against "our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens."

One might expect that true Islamic moderates would not menacingly insist that non-Muslims must at all costs avoid even slightest offense against the malevolently psychopathic elements of the world's second largest religion. Rather, shouldn't they concentrate on admonishing their fellow Muslims about the shame and humiliation they bring on themselves every time there is another killing spree over a cartoon? Imam Rauf's response might be that if he were to issue a condemnation every time there is a death threat, or a physical assault, or an act of terrorism, or a wave of riots, etc, by so-called "Islamic extremists", well, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. But that, really, is the whole point. And so long as that is the case, there is no reason whatsoever to pay any attention to the Sufi imam as he drones on about interfaith dialogue, "community centers", and the bogeyman of Islamophobia.

[Also see the previous post on Blasphemy, and links therein.]

Blasphemy

Voltaire did it. Thomas Paine did it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton did it. Bertrand Russell did it. Kathy Griffin does it. Some people thought R.Crumb was doing it, when really he was just illustrating Bible Stories without censoring them. The artist Andres Serrano did it, on the National Endowment for the Arts' dime. Adam Darski, better known as "Nergal", the frontman for Polish blackened death metal band Behemoth, did it. Thomas Pooley did it.

Thomas Pooley?

Thomas Pooley, who lived in the village of Liskeard, was a well-digger of eccentric beliefs. He thought the earth was a living, thinking animal, and he feared that, if he dug too deeply in it, he might penetrate its skin and wound vital parts. He professed a belief in one great and wise "Almighty Power," but experience with his fellow men taught him to dislike Christians and "Christian Bible tyranny." He did not, however, interfere with the Christian beliefs of his loving wife, or the Christian education of his children. One of his odd beliefs, which resulted in his imprisonment, was that burning all the Bibles and spreading their ashes over fields would cure potato rot. Although Pooley was an exemplary father and husband, and an industrious worker, he had a reputation for being mentally unbalanced and a village freethinker. But he was ignorant of freethought literature. Holyoake, who went to Cornwall to study his case, wrote solemnly that, if Pooley had "had the advantage of Freethinking books, he might now be of sound mind."

For fifteen years, Liskeard and its environs had been annoyed by chalked inscriptions on walls and gates, expressing sentiments that offended religious people. Pooley was thought to be the culprit, but no one ever saw him to the writing. One day, the Cornish Times ran this ad: "BLASPHEMY. Any person who has seen a man writing blasphemous sentences on gates or other places in the neighborhood of Liskeard, is requested to communicate immediately with Messrs. Pedler and Grylls, Liskeard, or with the Rev. R. Hobhouse, St. Ive Rectory." Soon after, the Reverend Paul Bush filed a criminal complaint against Pooley, asserting that he had blasphemously libeled the Holy Scriptures, the Christian religion, and God. Pooley may have been guilty of chalking the messages, but not even Bush ever saw him do it; Pooley was only seen in the vicinity, and he believed in God. Bush, who was rector of Duloe, swore that he had read on a gate the words: "Duloe stinks with the monster Christ's Bible-Blasphemy -- T. Pooley." Some children erased all but the first and last words. No proof was ever offered that the printing was in Pooley's hand, but these words on the gate constituted the first count in Pooley's indictment for blasphemy.

A second count consisted of similar gate-writing. When Pooley was summoned before the Liskeard magistrates, he walked into court with a rope around his neck and told the judges to pull it "and have done with it." To the constable who took him off to jail to await trial Pooley angrily said, "If it had not been for the blackguard Jesus Christ, when he stole the donkey, the police would not be wanted, and . . . he [Christ] was the forerunner of all theft and whoredom." That remark added a third count to his indictment for blasphemy. A fourth count was derived from his often stated belief that the ashes of Bibles would cure potato rot.
[Blasphemy: verbal offense against the sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie by Leonard Williams Levy pp. 467-8]

Pooley was convicted on all four counts and sentenced to serve 21 months in prison. Well-healed British atheists and freethinkers adopted the case as a "cause", although they generally dismissed Pooley himself as mad. The irreligious literati pointed out that new anti-Christian tracts were published and circulated in London on a weekly basis, but their authors were not brought up on charges.

Five months into his sentence, Thomas Pooley was pardoned by the presiding judge at his trial, John Coleridge. The year was 1858. There would not be another blasphemy prosecution in Britain for more than two decades, but the law under which Pooley was charged, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced stayed on the books -- and blasphemy cases continued to be argued in the courts until late in the 20th century, including one case by British Muslims trying to have Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses legally banned, and the law itself was not abolished until 2008!

more blasphemy at
e g r e g o r e s:

• Blasphemous Images
• Blasphemy, Part Deux
• The right to oppose Islam
• A plague on both their houses
• Melanie Phillips on Lars Hedegaard
  
• "Republicanism, Irreligion, Heresy, Paganism, and Sodomy."
• Blasphemy case against Nergal dismissed
• More on Nergal's case
  
• Doda: "Forbidden fruit tastes better."
• Two more "hate speech" cases
• Sex, Religion, Art, Music & Freedom of Expression in Poland
• Holocaust Denial is OK, but criticizing Islam is not. Apparently
• Early March, 2010 Blasphemy World Roundup!!
• The kids are alright (in praise of Blasphemous Metal)

.

Damned Good Ice Cream

According to the BBC, Italian gelato maker Antonio Federici has a new advertising slogan: "Immaculately Conceived." But the Advertising Standards Authority, Britain's independent regulator of advertising, has deemed the new ad campaign, which features a picture of a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, to be unacceptable:

"We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."

According to the BBC, "Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey." Pope Ratzinger will be visiting Westminster Abbey on Friday, and holding mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.

The ASA banned another series of advertisements by Antonio Federici in July 2009. That advertising campaign featured a series of images depicting a nun and priest staring longingly into each others' eyes, while undressing and eating Antonio Federici gelato.
.

"We plead for the universality of freedom of expression."

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity, and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilizations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism, and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology, which kills equality, freedom, and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject "cultural relativism," which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom, and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia," an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatization of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

Signed:

Salman Rushdie, author, The Satanic Verses
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch MP
Taslima Nasreen, exiled Bangladeshi writer
Bernard-Henri Levy, French philosopher
Chahla Chafiq, exiled Iranian writer
Caroline Fourest, French writer
Irshad Manji, author, The Trouble with Islam
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor of political science, University of Aarhus
Maryam Namazie, producer, TV International English
Antoine Sfeir, editor, Cahiers de l'Orient
Ibn Warraq, author, Why I Am Not a Muslim
Philippe Val, editor, Charlie Hebdo

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above statement was issued in early 2006 and published, among other places, in the Summer, 2006 issue of the Middle East Quarterly. Below is the accompanying statement from the editors of that publication:

On October 22, 2005, the France 2 television talk show Tout le Monde en Parle aired an interview with writer Salman Rushdie and French actor and Islamist Sami Nacéri. Left on the cutting room floor was an ugly incident during taping when Nacéri accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. If an imam asked him to kill Rushdie, Nacéri went on, he would himself shoot the bullet into Rushdie's head. He then pantomimed firing a gun at Rushdie.

Philippe Val, editor of the French left-wing weekly Charlie Hebdo, described the omitted segment in the November 2 issue of the magazine. French reaction was minimal. While some journalists debated whether celebrities made appropriate commentators, there was little discussion of France 2's decision to delete the offending segment.

On February 28, 2006, in response to Nacéri's threat, France 2's censorship, and the decision of several newspapers not to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, twelve prominent Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals issued a manifesto first published on the French website Proche-Orient.info. The translation, replicated below, was later published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. The willingness of prominent thinkers, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to stand together suggests that intellectuals recognize the totalitarian nature of Islamism and are determined not to cede terms of the societal debates to Islamists.

—The Editors

The statement was also published in the February 28, 2006 issue of the Danish language Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which also ran the following brief biographies of the signatories of the statement. Some of the English is a little sketchy -- I cleaned it up some, but left it mostly "as is". Links have been added:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from Somalian origin, is member of Dutch parliment, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assassination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in November 2004, she lives under police protection. [AHA Foundation website]

Chahla Chafiq, writer from Iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She's the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005). [chahlachafiq.com]

Caroline Fourest Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanaticism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l'épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She recieved the National prize of laicité in 2005. [Le blog de Caroline Fourest]

Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L'Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo. [bernard-henri-levy.com]

Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d'origine indienne à l'âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès. [Irshad Manji blog and official website]

Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from Iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations. [Professor Mozaffari's web page at the University of Aarhus]

Maryam Namazie Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award. [maryamnamazie.com]

Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a committee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate ». [Official website of Taslima Nasreen]

Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight's Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany's Author of the Year Award, the European Union's Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages. [Salman Rushdie's website at Random House]

Philippe Val Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists). [Website of Charlie Hebdo]

Ibn Warraq, author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book. [ibnwarraq.net]

Antoine Sfeir : Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir chose french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l'Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d'Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005). [Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism, edited by Antoine Sfeir]



The 12 signatories (from left to right): Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Chala Chafiq – Caroline Fourest – Bernard-Henri Lévy – Irshad Manji – Mehdi Mozaffari – Maryam Namazie – Taslima Nazreen – Salman Rushdie – Antoine Sfeir – Philippe Val – Ibn Warraq

Expect violent backlash if anti-Catholic protests aren't called off: Warning from politicians, religious leaders, and terrorism experts

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned, "as a very practical matter", that planned protests against the Pope's upcoming visit to the UK could be "a recruitment bonanza for the IRA, the FLQ and other extremists," referring to the Irish Republican Army and the less well known Front de libération du Québec, a Quebecois terrorist organization.

Blair also warned that British citizens living in Ireland and Quebec will be at serious risk of violent reprisals unless the planned protests are called off.

Immediately after making his statement Blair was hit in the head by a large shoe and had to be rushed to the hospital. The identity of the shoe-thrower is still unknown, but suspicion has focused on the shadowy ultra-ultramontanist group known simply as "Basis", which views Blair as a traitor because he concealed his Catholicism during the time he was in office.

Sporadic rioting has already broken out across Spain, Italy, Poland, France, the Philippines, and throughout Latin America. There are unconfirmed reports of deaths after police opened fire on a crowd throwing molotov cocktails at the buildings housing the British Consulate in Krakow.

President Obama has entered the fray by demanding that British Atheists call off their planned "stunt" of attempting to perform a citizens' arrest, under international law, of the Pope for supposed "crimes against humanity."

Religious leaders, interfaith dialoguers, Quakers, Unitarians, and progressive activists around the world have called for "solidarity with Catholics" and have condemned what they see as a dark wave of Papaphobia that threatens to plunge Western civilization back into an era of murderous scapegoatery the likes of which haven't been seen since the Third Reich.

World famed Sufi mystic, interfaith bridge builder, and expert in predicting violent religious backlashes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ably summed up the fears of many when he warned, gravely: "If these protests go ahead as planned, the headlines in the Catholic world will be that Catholicism is under attack in Great Britain, and the extremists have won. This will strengthen the radicals and it will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Catholic world. And we have expanded and given fuel to terrorism."

[The image in this post was snagged from the tshirthell.com website, where you can get your very own "Arrest the Pope" t-shirt -- the very latest in anti-ultramontanist fashion statements!]

Islamophobophobia Meets Reality: Shining some statistical light on the dark fantasy of Islamophobia

The majority of reported hate crimes in America are criminal acts motivated by anti-Black, anti-Jewish, and anti-Gay prejudices. Anyone familiar with current and historical patterns of discrimination and bigotry in the US will find no surprises there. Taken together, hate crimes against Blacks, Jews and Gays consistently make up over 60% of all hate-crimes. In contrast, criminal acts motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry make up between 1 and 2% all hate crimes.

The table below shows the hate-crime statistics for the years 2001-2008 (all data from the FBI Civil Rights division website):

YEAR - -	Blacks - -	Jews - -	Gays - -	Muslims - -	Total
2008	2,876	1,013	1,237	105	7,783
2007	2,658	969	1,221	115	7,624
2006	2,640	967	1,148	156	7,722
2005	2,630	848	971	128	7,163
2004	2,731	954	1,147	156	7,649
2003	2,548	927	1,225	149	7,489
2002	2,486	931	1,234	155	7,462
2001	2,899	1,043	1,375	481	9,730

[Totals include other categories of hate-crimes not listed.]



There was a significant peak in anti-Muslim hate-crimes following 9/11, but even this peak was still only 46% the number of hate-crimes committed against Jews, 35% as many as those committed against Gays, and 17% of those committed against Blacks. By 2002 anti-Muslim hate-crimes were back down to the statistically marginal range of 1-2%.

Prior to 9/11 the annual number of reported anti-Muslim hate crimes was even lower than the stable 100-150 crimes per year since 2002. In 2000, for example, there were only 28, less that 0.3% of all reported hate crimes, and less than 2% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. It is possible that 9/11 led to a measurable, persistent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes, but the numbers still remained quite small compared to hate-crimes overall, and some of this increase is certainly due to greater attention paid to these crimes since 9/11.

It seems reasonable to anticipate a statistically significant increase in reported anti-Muslim hate crimes for the current year, and after this peak quickly subsides it is also possible that reported hate-crimes against Muslims will level off at a higher level than previously. But it also seems reasonable to anticipate that any peak will be significantly lower than that after the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that even if there is a stable increase, this will not be dramatic.

The Bottom Line is that there is clearly no basis for the dire predictions that the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has ushered in a dangerous new Islamophobical Amerikkka reminiscent of Nazi Germany with Muslims taking the place of the Jews.

The baseless, hysterical claims now being made about a non-existent wave of "Islamophobia" in America constitute a crude attempt to demonize the 70% of Americans who have serious doubts, to say the least, about (1) the Ground Zero Mosque, (2) links between Islam and terrorism, (3) the potential threat to basic rights and freedoms posed by the spread of Islam, etc.

Phobophobia, btw, is a recognized psychological malady. It is the irrational fear of phobias.

"That is exactly why they were targeted." (Geert Wilders' Speech Today in NYC)

"No place on earth had a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-lingual workforce than New York’s proud towers.

"That is exactly why they were targeted."

Dear friends, May I ask you to be silent for ten seconds? Just be silent and listen. Ten seconds. And listen… What we hear are the sounds of life in the greatest city on earth.

No place in the world, no place in human history, is as richly varied and vibrant and dynamic as New York City. You hear the cars, you hear the people, you hear them rushing to their various destinations, you hear the sounds of business and of pleasure, you hear the cheers, you hear the cries, the buzzing sounds of human activity. And that is how it should be.

Always. Now close your eyes – I know it’s a beautiful day, but close your eyes. I have been told that this day nine years ago was just such a beautiful day -- and remember, or try to remember, or try to imagine the sounds which were heard here on this spot under this same blue sky exactly nine years ago. The sound of shock, the sound of destruction, the sound of panic, the sound of pain, the sound of terror.

Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this? What, my friends, would you say to people who argue that New York, that America, that the West had itself to blame for those horrible sounds?

There are people in this city who argue this. And they are angry because we are gathered here today to commemorate, to make a stand, to draw the line. My friends, I have come from the other side of the Atlantic to share your grief for those who died here nine years ago. I have not forgotten how I felt that day.

The scenes are imprinted on my soul, as they are on yours.

But our hearts were not broken in the same way as the hearts of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives here. Many relatives of the victims are here in our midst today.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to them and to all of the people of New York and America. Humbly, I stand here before you as a Dutchman and a European.

I, too, however, cannot forget. How can anyone forget?

Let me remind you of the words from Darryl Worley’s 9/11 song. Have you forgotten how it felt that day?

To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten when those towers fell?

We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell Worley’s response is our response: No, we will NEVER forget. We are here today because we have not forgotten all the loved ones that were lost and those left to carry on.

And neither has the world. When the forces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world. Among those lost were people from 55 nations, people of every religion and every persuasion. No place on earth had a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-lingual workforce than New York’s proud towers.

That is exactly why they were targeted. They constituted an insult to those who hold that there can be no peaceful cooperation among people and nations without submission to Sharia; to those who wish to impose the legal system of Islam on the rest of us.

But New York and Sharia are incompatible. New York stands for freedom, openness and tolerance. New York’s Mayor recently said that New York is “rooted in Dutch tolerance.”

Those are true words. New York is not intolerant. How can it be? New York is open to the world. Suppose New York were intolerant. Suppose it only allowed people of one persuasion within its walls.

Then it would be like Mecca, a city without freedom. Whatever your religion, persuasion or gender is, in New York you will find a home.

In Mecca, if your religion isn’t Islam, you are not welcome. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims the right to build a mosque, a house of Sharia here – on this hallowed ground.

But, friends, I have not forgotten and neither have you.

That is why we are here today. To draw the line.

Here, on this sacred spot. We are here in the spirit of America’s founding fathers. We are here in the spirit of freedom. We are here in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, the President who freed the slaves. President Lincoln said: “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.”

These words are the key to our survival. The tolerance that is crucial to our freedom requires a line of defense. Mayor Bloomberg uses tolerance as an argument to allow Imam Rauf and his sponsors to build their so-called Cordoba Mosque.

Mayor Bloomberg forgets, however, that openness cannot be open-ended. A tolerant society is not a suicidal society.

It must defend itself against the powers of darkness, the force of hatred and the blight of ignorance. It cannot tolerate the intolerant – and survive.

This means that we must not give a free hand to those who want to subjugate us. An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building this mosque.

So is an overwhelming majority everywhere in the non-Islamic world.

Because we all realize what is at stake here. We know what this so-called Cordoba mosque really means. Imam Rauf maintains that American secular law and Sharia law are based on the same principles.

He refuses to condemn terrorists because he says terrorism is “a very complex question”. He says America is “an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11.”

“In fact,” he literally said, “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

He also says that “terrorism will only end when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims.”

That is why this man should not play the game he has in mind here in Manhattan. His “Blame the West, Blame America”-message is an insult. Americans – and by extension, all of us whose civilization was also attacked on 9/11/2001 – are not to blame for what happened here nine years ago today. Osama bin Laden is not made in the USA.

The West never “harmed” Islam before it harmed us.

Most Americans do not want this so-called Cordoba Mosque to be built here. They understand that it is both a provocation and a humiliation. They understand the triumphant narrative of a mosque named after the Great Mosque of Cordoba which was constructed where a Christian cathedral stood before the land was conquered by Islam.

An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building an Islamic cultural center close to Ground Zero. There is no lack of mosques in New York. There are dozens of buildings in which Muslims can pray. It isn’t about a lack of space for prayers.

It’s about the symbolic meaning. We who have come to speak today, object to this mosque project because its promoter and his wealthy sponsors have never suggested building a center to promote tolerance and interfaith understanding where it is really needed: In Mecca – a town where non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter, let alone build churches, synagogues, temples or community centers.

Ordinary Americans object to the mosque project because currently no fewer than ten major multi-million dollar mosque projects are being planned in the United States as well as dozens in Europe, while not a single church is allowed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while Jews are not even allowed to move their lips in prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, while the oldest Christians in the world, the Copts, are not free to renovate their churches, let alone to build one in Egypt.

My friends, that is why we are here today. What happens in New York must be seen in the perspective of the world.

The events nine years ago made an enormous impact everywhere. Most people shared your pain, but, unfortunately, some did not.

Nine years ago, when the news of the terrible atrocity in New York reached Europe, Muslim youths danced in the streets. In a poll, two thirds of the Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands expressed partial or full understanding for the 9/11 terrorists.

If a mosque were built here on Ground Zero such people would feel triumphant. But we, we will not betray those who died on 9/11.

For their sakes we cannot tolerate a mosque on or near Ground Zero. For their sakes loud and clear we say: No mosque here! For their sakes, we must draw the line. So that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.

But, let us also express our gratitude for the heroes of 9/11, those who went down in that Pennsylvania field, those who were standing freedom’s watch at the Pentagon, and those who were here in New York nine years ago to risk and lose their lives for the victims.

Friends, in honor of these victims, these heroes and their families, I believe that the words of Ronald Reagan, spoken in Normandy on the 40 th anniversary of D-Day, resonate with new purpose on this hallowed spot.

President Reagan said: “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” And, we, too, will always remember the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones who were left behind; We, too, will always be proud of the heroes; We will always defend liberty, democracy and human dignity; In the name of freedom: No mosque here!

One "stunt" down, one to go.

Pastor Terry Jones had every right in the world to burn the Koran. For the most part no one denies that. But there were other considerations. There were potential consequences.

In the end, Jones decided not to go through with his "stunt", as the President of the United States characterized this one citizen's proposed exercise in free expression.

On the Today Show (today, September 11, 2010) Terry Jones stated, "We will definitely not burn the Quran, no. Not today, not ever ... Even though we have not burned one Quran, we have gotten over 100 death threats. We feel that God is telling us to stop, and we also hope that ... maybe that will open up the door to maybe be able to talk to the imam."

In addition to the death threats, Jones has also had his church's website taken down by Rackspace, the webhosting company they used. According to a Rackspace spokesperson, the church had "violated the Offensive Content section of its Acceptable Use policy."

Despite Jones' announcement, followers of the Religion of Peace in Afghanistan continue to "protest" the Koran burning that didn't happen by setting fires, throwing stones, and attacking shops, police stations, NATO troops and government offices.

Meanwhile, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf continues to demonstrate that a "moderate" Muslim Sufi mystic can be more pigheaded that even a reactionary fundamentalist yahoo like Jones.