Female applicants are no longer allowed to take university entrance exams in Tajikistan wearing hijab, Tajikistan’s State Teacher Training Institute stated Friday.

The statement came after three applicants wearing hijab were prevented from taking entrance exams at the National University on July 31. Tajikistan's Ministry of Education has banned the hijab for school and university students.

This is hijab -- no face covering, not a burqa, not an abaya. In other words, something that presents much less security risk (if any).

In absence of security risk, is this stam just a curtailing of religious expression?

Posted by Y-Love at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Henry G. Brinton, pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church, wrote this blog for USAToday saying, succinctly, that one need not feel compelled to "leave G-d out of the workplace." On the contrary, employers are beginning to see the benefit of allowing employees to incorporate faith into their daily professional lives. One does not have to leave "beliefs at home".

Most of us don't make a strong connection between Sabbath spirituality and weekday work. But religious people need to practice their faith in the workplace if they are going to pursue their vocations with integrity. This means stopping work to pray at appropriate times, as faithful Muslims do. More broadly, it includes finding ways to integrate faith and work, create a more inclusive workplace and tap the resources of great religious traditions for ethical guidance.

And such behavior doesn't mean proselytizing on the job.

Since the 1980s, spirituality has begun to move into the workplace. The shift includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, as well as people who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. Though only about 50 workplace ministries existed in the early 1990s, more than 900 are in place today, says Os Hillman, a Georgia businessman who has written The 9 to 5 Window: How Faith Can Transform the Workplace. Such ministries encourage people to see work as a calling from God.

Dozens of companies — from Coca-Cola to Microsoft — are becoming more "faith-friendly" as they welcome the spirituality of their employees, allowing groups to meet for Bible study or to discuss business ethics with a religious twist. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has a Christian Fellowship Group, and the management at Bear Stearns, a Wall Street finance house, endorses and funds a weekly Torah class.

This faith at work movement is grounded in "desire for integration," says David Miller, a Yale professor and author of the book God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. Business people now want to bring their whole selves to work — mind, body and spirit — instead of having to "leave their soul with the car in the parking lot," says Miller, a former investment banker.

One commenter on the blog, hawki1, in his initially pro-diversity comment, lent his irrational voice to the discussion:

Would it be ok if a Wiccan or Satanist or other brand of religion leaves their book on the coffee table, or would that be offensive to many in the workplace? With Christian fundamentalists around, these books would not be around long!

How would known atheists be treated in the workplace? Should an atheist be allowed to be offended by the Bible or any other religious article sitting around? Or should an atheist just SHUT up and accept it or look for another job?...NO religion in the work place is NOT a good idea. If one person wants to practice in their office, fine but not as discussed here.

This is just another example of trying to incorporate religion into the workplace. Just happens to be that CHRISTIANS make up 90% of society so of course CHRISTIANS are all for it...The example of the Jew is just a smokescreen because in a primarily CHRISTIAN workplace (with fundamentalists) the Jewish banner and other religious banners would be QUICKLY REMOVED, don't kid yourself.

Yes, religion in the workplace IS a good idea. It makes for better employees -- who now don't have to leave the office to pray or find kosher food or learn Torah -- and it makes for, ostensibly, a more ethical work environment. (Granted, as we know, "religious/secular" and "righteous/wicked" are two drastically different, independent dichotomies.) Incorporating religious coercion into the workplace is something else entirely, and as Michael Newdow showed the world, atheists' concerns are valid in courts of law.

The atheist of hawki1's case would be able to sue. The Jewish employees would also be able to sue. As would the Satanist whose books got forcibly thrown away. Those actions would be illegal.

What is not illegal is allowing employees to freely fulfill their religious responsibilities and exercise their religious freedom. Why is a "G-d-free" (ch"v) environment instantly the preferable one, the one which must be fought for and preserved at all costs?

Coercion and expression are two different things. No one in the above article is forcing, or even attempting to convince, anyone to do anything. Equating religious expression with religious coercion gets people like hawki1 up in arms and eventually people become unable to pray in public. Eventually people get thrown off of entire airlines for saying G-d's Name in public.

Bring G-d to work. Today and everyday.

Posted by Y-Love at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Obviously I'm uncompromisingly monotheistic. I recognize the supremacy and primacy of the Torah, and of G-d. The Torah is very unwavering, no form of alien worship of any other powers is allowed.

But, on the other hand, we do, after all live in America, a country with freedom of religious expression.

So then, what in the hell is this?

From The Hill.com:

Protesters interrupt first ever Senate prayer by Hindu

For the first time in its history, the Senate Thursday opened a session with a prayer by a Hindu. Protesters interrupted the proceedings on two separate occasions and were arrested.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invited Rajan Zed from the Hindu Temple of Northern Nevada in Reno.

Before Zed could begin speaking, protesters attempted to drown out his speech. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who presided over the Senate at the time, had to ask the Sergeant at Arms to restore order before Zed could commence, and once again during his speech after another protester shouted, citing the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before you.” The guest chaplain appeared rattled by the cries, but remained composed and continued his prayer.

Zed chanted from Sanskrit holy texts, including portions of the Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. He prayed, additionally, for the senators to serve wisely and selflessly. Zed concluded with a prayer to comfort the family of former first lady Lady Bird Johnson, who died Wednesday.

The opening prayer is normally given by the Senate chaplain, Barry C. Black, a Seventh-Day Adventist, but senators are permitted to invite guest chaplains from their home state.

The Senate Chaplain’s office confirmed that Zed was the first Hindu in history to lead the Senate’s opening prayer. In 2000, Venkatachalpathi Samuldrala performed the first Hindu opening prayers for the House of Representatives.

And this is not going on in a vacuum: From Harvard Professors to Pat Robertson, various people have gone on anti-Hindu tirades in public. Pat Robertson called Hinduism "demonic" and Jeffrey Long, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, said that "though it is less well-known in this country, anti-Hindu bigotry is every bit as ugly and dangerous as anti-Semitism or racism."

Vinay Vallabh of the Executive Council of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) noted that websites promoting religious hatred and intolerance towards Hindus and Hinduism are proliferating, and in the HAF's report, noted:

According to statistics provided in the report, "demonic" and "satanic" are the terms most commonly used today to describe Hinduism by numerous anti-Hindu websites easily accessible on the Internet. “The proliferation of websites promoting religious hatred is an unfortunate consequence of the universality of access to the internet,” said Vinay Vallabh, lead author of the report, and member of the Foundation’s Executive Council.

“We must vigorously identify, condemn and counter those who use the Internet to espouse chauvinism and bigotry over the principles of pluralism and tolerance.”

Posted by Y-Love at 05:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a statement that the Independent Catholic News all but glossed over, Bishop William Kenney CP, Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham, and Spokesperson on European Affairs for the Catholic Bishops, spoke about what he described as "a vociferous and aggressive secularism in certain parts of Europe."

Romania is about to enter the European Union, and is not as secular as many of its other European counterparts. Romania, it is being assumed, will eventually "get with it" and renounce some of its religious traditions in favor of the more "enlightened" secularism.

The Birmingham Diocese gives Bishop Kenney's statements in a bit more context:

"At a time when there is a vociferous and aggressive secularism in certain parts of Europe it must be said that all people who have any faith, and not just Christians, are going to need to stand together for the values which Europe and not least Romania stand for."

Are citizens of faith not marginalized here too? Are words like "fundamentalist" and "fanatic" not thrown around with the same venom as "racist" on this side of the ocean?

As in Europe, so too in America. All people who have any faith are going to need to stand to gether for the values which we ourselves stand for. Even if those values transcend America.

Posted by Y-Love at 06:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes, when speaking about Islam or Islamophobia, as a Jew, I often worry about overstepping my boundaries.

It is not my place to criticize Shia or Sunni, to denounce division past a certain extent (what, am I calling for a unified Muslim umma?), or even, past what other Muslims (usually Sheikhs or Imams or madras students) tell me, criticize what I believe to be murderous actions in the name of Islam. I simply try to remind people that it is the Qur'an which Muslims universally must hold faithful to, that there is no pillar of the Islamic faith that requires allegiance to any one sheikh, of the benefits of interfaith peace and Jewish-Muslim unity, things like that.

So I really didn't feel it appropriate to voice my opinion on the Secular Islam summit without a Muslim person speaking to me first about it. But, lo and behold, at ReligionAndSpirituality.com today, Mike Ghouse, president of the Foundation for Pluralism, voiced what was in my head, and a whole lot more.

Continue reading "Columnist On Secular Islam Summit: "Muslim-Bashing Feeding Frenzy" of "Extremists"" »

Posted by Y-Love at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The author of the very easily misunderstood JihadWatch.org has been invited by the FBI's Indianapolis office to talk to its anti-terrorism task force. The decision to bring in author Robert Spencer offended some area Muslims:

Louay Safi, director of leadership development with the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North America, said bringing Spencer in to talk of Islam is akin to bringing an anti-Semite to talk about Jews or a Ku Klux Klan member to talk about race.

"Many people in our community will not be happy with it," Safi said.

Spencer is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion." He is also a director of Jihad Watch, a Web site that calls attention to the activity of Islamic jihadists.

"When they bring in someone like that, it makes it difficult even for us to explain to the Muslim community that (the FBI) is neutral and is not listening to extremists who really hate Muslims," Safi said.

However, explaining his statements, Mr. Spencer said:

Continue reading "Just Because They Quote It, Does It Make It True?" »

Posted by Y-Love at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It's like Israeli Knesset Member Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism) said. Hezbollah didn't discriminate.

Neither do the PFLP, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, or Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade for that matter. Their Qassams, Katyushas and Ra'ad missiles were, in some places, the most egalitarian things going on, killing without regard to religious observance or ethnic origin. The suicide bombers and terrorists see one universal color -- "enemy" -- which can transcend even "Jew" or "Zionist". (And if you think it can't, I know at least one family in Italy who would beg to differ.)

People died equally, people were damaged equally. But equal is not so "equal" in Israel once you put on a black yarmulke. The Jerusalem Post reports:

MK Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism) said on Wednesday that the Education Ministry's approach to haredi students showed hints of "anti-Semitic discrimination," and that the ministry was breaking the law by refusing to give equal funding to haredi schools.

In response to the data presented at the Knesset's Education Committee, which showed that haredi schools in the North were not supplied with science kits or computers, Gafni pointed out that during the war last summer, Hizbullah had treated all students, including haredi ones, equally as Jews - something the Education Ministry was not doing.

Education Minister Yuli Tamir said that she officially showed preference to the national education system and was working to strengthen it.

In Tamir's words, if the haredim want equality, they will have to join the national education system.

And that's how religious schools get treated. And herein lies the paradoxical hypocrisy: one of the main claims the government makes about the religious school system is that they don't teach the "Israeli core curriculum." But here we see -- science kits, computers (and before this it was infrastructure improvements and structural repairs) -- things which are requisite if the core curriculum is even going to begin to be a possibility, these things are being withheld.

"Teach AP chemistry."
"We can't, we don't have beakers."
"So buy beakers."
"We can't because we have no money. So fund our school."
"We won't fund you because you won't teach AP chemistry."
"We can't teach AP chemistry because we don't have beakers!"
"So buy beakers."
And so on and so on, ad infinitum.

Logistic, educational, structural, and environmental (damn, that's a lot) considerations aside, the only thing preventing religious schools from receiving the funding is their eschewing of non-essential subjects and teaching (you guessed it) Torah! The rabid secularists have control of the money, and they will use that control to keep Torah on the backburner, if not out of the "Jewish state" entirely.

Yuli Tamir said last year she was "disturbed" by the haredim (well at least now she's venting) and their lack of allegiance to the state of Israel and lack of identification with its Zionist ideals. But sometimes, it is kind of hard to look at a Lexus-studded driveway in Haifa and say that one has more in common with its driver than the Arabic-speaking co-inhabitant of a gravel lot one shares a trailer schoolhouse with.

And instead of trying to correct at least a little of the inequity, what are religious Jews told? "If the haredim want equality, they will have to join the national education system." Want equality? Stop learning so much Torah.

Just appreciate the gravity of that phrase -- "if they want equality."

Posted by Y-Love at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What does an article like this accomplish? Whose eyes are opened as a result of prose like this? The article begins:

Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.

When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,” my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.

The article contains such vignettes as:

...the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia...

...I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism...

Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny....

Why are people like my boy Isa, my boy Umar Lee, Abu Sinan -- why are these moderate Muslims, one of whom refers to himself as "fundamentalist" and all of whom are proud to have me, a charedi Orthodox Jew among their friends, why are they not "brave and enlightened"?

I feel that, in Ms. Chesler's mind, secularization theory is the order of the day and the "new enlightenment" is no more than a thin facade for a call, worldwide, for Muslims to leave sharia in toto and cling to a couscous-flavored version of the European secularism that all of humanity is supposed to just rejoice over.

Prof. Chesler must not have had the same type of interpersonal relations with Muslims that I have had, because my Muslim friends have let me know unequivocally: advocating sharia-equity for women, advocating non-violence, decrying murder of innocents -- to call for these things is in no way a modern enlightenment, but true jihad, bringing things back to the standards of the Qur'an (which is replete with its pro-pluralistic statements, regardless of who quotes what), not "adapting them to secular Western values".

Again -- let's review: murders are committed by criminals, by terrorists. Islam is practiced by Muslims. Let's not confuse the two sets of people.

Posted by Y-Love at 05:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From The Sun:

A BRITISH Muslim school is teaching children that Jews are “repugnant apes” and Christians “pigs”, a former teacher claims.

Colin Cook, 57, says when he raised his concerns to chiefs at the Saudi government-funded King Fahad Academy in West London he was told: “This is not England. It is Saudi Arabia.” Some of the 1,250 pupils at the faith school are alleged to have been heard idolising Osama bin Laden, praising 9/11 and saying they want to “kill Americans”.

Mr Cook — himself a Muslim — warned yesterday: “The school could produce a dangerous harvest.

“It is clearly racist and very divisive. It’s deeply immoral to put such ideas into the heads of young children.

“The vast majority of Muslims, including myself, are law-abiding, tolerant of others and peaceful. I understand now why pupils express anti-Western views at the school. Similar concerns at the sister school in Bonn, Germany, gave rise to the fear that the Academies could become breeding grounds for terrorists.”

This is not the first time I've heard this about textbooks. Is there a PDF -- anywhere -- of such things?

I hope that Mr. Cook's claims are untrue, because if they're not, this means that a group of Muslim children need to either find another school, or there is a school in the UK that needs to fire a significant percentage of its administration.

Posted by Y-Love at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Cremation is a post-life alternative chosen by an increasing number of Americans. Over 30% of Americans chose to be cremated in 2004, and according to the Cremation Association of North America, a majority of people will choose cremation over burial by the year 2040.

Cremation, however, is strongly denounced by both Judaism and Islam, which view the body as "on loan from G-d", the property of a Divine Creator, not under an individual's will to be disposed of as one pleases. The Talmud says flatly, "any one who orders another before his death that his remains be disposed of other than by burial should have his wishes disregarded" (Sanhedrin 46b). Islam is likewise unequivocal in its prohibition of cremation, with a hadith saying "Breaking a dead's bones is like breaking it as if he is alive", equating anything done to a dead body with that action done to the living person.

In fact, it's not just Muslims and Torah-observant Jews, but Eastern Orthodox Christians, Zoroastrians, and Southern Baptists all forbid cremation. (As do Neo-Confucianists.)

How ironic it is, then, that in the one nation called the "Holy Land", cremation is cheaper than it is in America.

Continue reading "Cremation? In Israel?" »

Posted by Y-Love at 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So says one commentator, Wayne Madsen from the Kansas City Star Online:

Muslims are required by their faith to pray to Mecca five times a day. There is nothing sinister or criminal about people peacefully carrying out the obligations of their faith. Airlines that single out praying Muslims and deny them flight privileges permanently are no different than the five-and-dime stores that once prevented black people from eating at luncheonette counters.

It is as unthinkable to ban praying Muslims from a flight, as it would be to deny boarding to a group of praying Hasidic Jews. Both sects engage in public group prayers. Both are exercising their constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Persecution of religious minorities by the majority is nothing new in the United States. Nor is an attempt by the majority to link religious minorities to some grandiose and evil global plot against America.

Posted by Y-Love at 03:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A move already being billed by clerics as "anti-religious prejudice".

From The Times of India:

MUMBAI/PUNE: As a controversy appeared to be brewing over the Jewellers' Association of Maharashtra's demand that veiled women be barred from entering shops, Islamic clerics condemned the move and said Muslims would boycott outlets that implemented such a restriction.

Asked about complaints by jewellers about the "menace" of burqa-clad customers and their plea to be allowed to screen such customers following an increase in robberies, deputy chief minister R R Patil told reporters here that he had not received any such complaint.

"I have no information on this," Patil said. Muslim clerics and the leading seminary Darul Uloom Waqf Deoband opposed the move, saying it could create tension. Terming the proposal "anti-religious", Darul Uloom Waqf Deoband requested the Maharashtra government to take action against its implementation.

"It is an act that would create tension. The Maharashtra government should take steps to prevent such an act," said Maulana Anjar Shah Kashmiri of the seminary in Uttar Pradesh. Maulana Mehmood Daryabadi of the All-India Ulema Council said Muslims would be "compelled" to boycott shops that imposed restrictions on the entry of veiled women.

"If they try to implement this decision, Muslims will be compelled to boycott purchasing jewellery from shops where women in burqas are not allowed to enter," he said.

Posted by Y-Love at 05:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Canadian Jewish News:

In the fight against militant Islam, one of the new theories is this: if you force Muslims to look like everyone else, they’ll start acting like everyone else. That thought was the driving force behind the French government’s 2004 decision to ban religious symbols in schools.

It’s also the driving force behind a new bill proposed by the Dutch government that, if passed, would forbid Muslim women from donning facial veils in public, and it’s the reason former British foreign secretary Jack Straw admitted in a recent editorial that he asks Muslim women to remove their veils during conversations with him.

The effort to end fanaticism – religious or otherwise – is always a worthy cause. But inherent in this endeavor is the danger of becoming precisely the fanatic you had hoped to eradicate. In the effort to create uniformity and civic equality, it’s quite possible that what we reward is actually a form of secular fanaticism.

In 1959, Philip Roth posed the question that we should all be asking ourselves right now: who are the real fanatics?

Posted by Y-Love at 01:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, well, well.

As if anyone was surprised. A new study, commissioned by the religious-secular coexistence organization Tzav Piyus which seeks to increase religious-secular dialogue in Israel, just released the results of a new study today to Israeli daily Ma'ariv's NRG.co.il (link is in Hebrew). The study found, among other things:

• 90% of Charedi people would buy a car from a secular or traditional person, 42% of secular people responded that they would not buy a car from a Charedi person;


• 62.3% of Charedi people would live in a place which was majority secular; 57.7% of secular people said they "would not" do the converse;


• 50.2% of secular respondents said that the statement "Charedim are oppressing the country" was true; when asked a similar extreme question, "Are secular Jews only half-Jews?" only 6.8% of Charedim said it was true (granted, this is a biased question)

Posted by Y-Love at 03:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This was the scene at a Dubai shopping mall this past week. Last week -- synchronous with the second day of the Jewish New Year -- began the Muslim holy month of Ramadhan, marked by fasting and penitence, culminating in Laylat al-Qadr, the night Muslims believe the Qur'an was revealed.

The UAE, as Brigadier Abdul-Jaleel Mahdi, head of protective safety of the Dubai police department, noted, has no specific law requiring modest dress during Ramadan. However, as one reader of the Emiri 7 DAYS blog noted, dressing in short skirts and revealing tops is just plain disrespectful to religious residents:

One Muslim reader, Anas Zurkiyeh wrote to 7DAYS yesterday of “inconsiderate ladies who wear skirts, shorts and all those revealing items in malls and on the streets during our fast.”

And a non-Muslim reader, Carla, told us yesterday: “I am shocked at how some people completely ignore the modest dress code during Ramadan. Women were doing their shopping in shorts, miniskirts and skimpy tops. It’s not intentional, but just plain ignorance.”

Dubai is now a major player among the cities of the world and tourism is highly promoted here. Tourist don’t want to come to Dubai to find themselves restricted from doing simple things like wearing the clothes they like just because it is Ramadan....you must understand that for the U.A.E. to thrive or rather survive in a multi ethnic setting freedom is a very important initiative for people who reside here & tourist alike. I’m not saying that all laws should be abolished, just that the laws should be reasonable.

This, however, begs a bigger question: Why is it an inalienable right of every single bi-pedaled human to expose 80% of their flesh? A request like "don't show your breasts" is abhorred like FGM throughout the secular media. Dubai's shari'a based dress code is actually, in the opinion of this author, not so restrictive as to cause a drop in UAE tourism:

A: MEN’S DRESS CODE

Indecent Dress or Behavior:
Very short pants in public or commercial places like malls and public offices.
Chest nudity.
Ezar in public places (Ezar is the local Emirate male underwear).

B: WOMEN’S DRESS CODE

Indecent Dress:
Clothing that exposes the stomach and back.
Short clothing above the knee.
Tight and transparent clothing that describes the body.

No one wants a scene like they used to have in Zanzibar, Tanzania:

In the past, women who have dressed in short skirts or swimsuits inside Zanzibar's main city have been attacked. Two other Islamic groups have also called on tourists to respect Islamic practices, though none has threatened any direct action.

But the UAE is a Muslim country (come ON, what does the A stand for?). Western secular societies have no such framework -- absolute personal freedom is an ideal, if not an actuality.

While I find the music to be completely cheesy (4), perhaps Dubai malls would be well served by playing this little video for their shoppers:

Continue reading "United Arab Emirates: Have a Little Respect for Ramadan" »

Posted by Y-Love at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Examine these pictures of the pope protests outside of London's Westminster Cathedral as a result of the current papal row.
Canada Free Press.com described the scene as follows:

Last Sunday, Catholics going to Holy Mass in London's Westminster Cathedral were confronted by Christophobic Muslims, carrying hate posters such as "Pope go to hell," "Benedict watch your back," "May Allah curse the Pope," "Jesus is the slave of Allah, "Islam will conquer Rome," and the like.

Granted, the column is filled with "I call it like I see it"-defended Islamophobia such as:

Perhaps it can be argued that Islam is in agony, and that this is precisely the reason why Muslims reacted so sensitively to twelve, mostly inoffensive, Danish cartoons earlier this year...

It looks as if Muslims cannot cope with an open society and the modern globalized world. Should we interpret their aggression --­ the result of their inability to cope with the world -- as a token of strength...?

The term was actually coined by Catholic scholar George Weigel. Weigel began investigating the phenomenon after being struck by the European Union's fierce resistance to any mention of the continent's Christian origins in the draft versions of the new, and still unratified, European constitution. Originally it was used to describe anti-Christian prejudice among secularists.

New Zealand's Scoop News columnist Jason Miller expresses his fear over the advent of what he terms "Anglo-Christophobia" but puts it in context:

Continue reading "Christophobia?" »

Posted by Y-Love at 05:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yediot Aharonot reports:

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia (FJC) said Madonna's stage performances were amoral and urged all religious-minded people to abstain from attending her Moscow concert due on September 11, the Interfax news agency reported.

[...]

In her show, Madonna uses Jewish and Muslim religious symbols and this for "me as a Jew, is shocking," Gorin said, adding that the fact that she uses in her songs Jewish terminology was "rather illiterate and inconsiderate."

This comes after Pope Benedict and the entire Vatican slammed her for her use of crucifixion during a show in Rome.

The Russian Orthodox church also voiced their discontent with Madonna's performance:

The statement reports an intention to hold a broad action in protest against Madonna’s ‘blasphemous and anti-Christian’ show and urges the authorities ‘at least to postpone the planned concert from September 11 to another date and to ban her scene with the blasphemous crucifixion’.

And, as RIA noted, perhaps expectedly, the protests on behalf of literally every Christian denomination, the Council of Muftis and Federation of Jewish Communities fell on deaf ears as the deafening sound of printing tickets drowned them out -- 4,000 tickets flew in a couple hours.

This is not what concerns me. I wouldn't expect there to be a mass rush of teshuva in Eastern Europe, that all teens should burn their Madonna CDs instantly. However, the bravado is almost summed up perfectly in the words of Benedetta Mori of Rome, who attended Madonna's show there:

“If they allowed her to stage the show here they must also play by her rules.”

According to the report, Gorin stressed that the organizers of such concerts in Moscow, which he said is "the capital of Orthodoxy," ought to "be more tactful toward the innermost in human moral; that is faith."

Gorin reminded the audience about the reaction of the Muslim world to the publication in the Western media of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, the report said.

Posted by Y-Love at 06:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)