While the French government unveiled its plan to ban the burqa worn by some Muslim women, the reign in Maine leaves much to explain by proposing to allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice. The contrast between the two stories is quite clear: the French move to protect its public while the Mainers move aside to endanger theirs.

Two burqa-wearers walk into a post office …

The stance taken by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, declaring last year that the burqa was not welcome in France, is one taken in the interests of security and as an act against the debasing of women. The burqa (actually, it is techinically the naqib – a head-to-toe covering that leaves no exposed skin bar slits for the eyes) is seen as something that is incongruent with French society. Yet the ban is not intended to marginalize Muslims or to oppress them in any fashion: the ban would see any form (Muslim or otherwise) of veil or other covering of the face in public become illegal, except at specific festivals and cultural events.

France has approximately six million Muslims within its borders, of which less than 2000 Muslim women wear the burqa. That’s a mere 0.03% of the French Muslim population. Ought there really be such a fuss?

Well, to some extent, the French government have recently been given just cause to make such a fuss: a post office was robbed by two burglars just last week. And the burglars were disguised in – yep, you guessed it – burqas.

Read the rest of this entry

One thing that hasn’t been abstaining from the news in the past fortnight is culture’s attitude towards sex. There are two counts in particular that caught my interest: one was State-side, aroused by curious questions from Oprah Winfrey on her namesake’s show; the other was a reactive orgasm from Australia’s media and some members of it’s Federal Government (including the Deputy Prime Minister, no less) towards remarks made by the Opposition Leader.

Both instances concerned the topic of sexual abstinence and, while both were delivered a world apart, both were raised in praise of abstinence. In the US, it was Bristol Palin’s (daughter of 2008 US vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin) commitment to abstain from sex until marriage; in Australia, it was Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott’s parental exhortation for his three daughters to remain virginal until marriage.

In either case, neither of the comments made were received with any measure of intellect. Just an incredulity and a penchant for political power play.

Read the rest of this entry

Click here to read Dr. Albert Mohler’s explanation for why he chose to sign the Manhattan Declaration. In my estimation, it was a powerful testimony of the necessity, passion, and courage of this document which addresses three central issues that threaten the very stability of contemporary society. The thoughts which Dr. Mohler closed his article with were especially strong, which I have included here in the hopes that it compels you to read the full article.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge—that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth—and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

Bill Maher, 16 June 2009 (video)

“Sorry, folks, but this President is not fighting for real health care reform. It’s nibbling that leaves insurance companies still running the show. … This is not getting the job done. This is not what I voted for. And this is why I don’t want my President to be a TV star, because TV stars are too worried about being popular and too concerned with getting renewed. … Folks, Barack Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies, and the health care industry… I’m glad Obama is President, but the Audacity of Hope part is over. Right now I’m hoping for a little more audacity.”

Cyrus Vance, 14 June 1977

“If terrorism and violence in the name of dissent cannot be condoned, neither can violence that is officially sanctioned. Such action perverts the legal system that alone assures the survival of our traditions. The surest way to defeat terrorism is to promote justice in our societies—legal, economic, and social justice. Justice that is summary undermines the future it seeks to promote. It produces only more violence, more victims, and more terrorism. Respect for the rule of law will promote justice and remove the seeds of subversion. Abandoning such respect, governments descend into the netherworld of the terrorist and lose their strongest weapon—their moral authority.”

Barney Frank: My answer to you is, as I said before: It is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. [...] Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table; I have no interest in doing it!

Quoted for truth!

For all Americans who are absolutely fed up with the multi-billion-dollar private health care industry raking in staggering profits for its CEOs and shareholders off keeping Americans sick.

Which do you prefer having between you and your doctor? (1) A duly elected government body representing and subject to We the People that wants health care for everyone, or (2) a multi-billion-dollar profit-minded private corporate body representing CEOs and shareholders that routinely denies health care for so many through unethical exemptions, loopholes, and similar practices?

Send a strong message to "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House of Representatives, using an already filled out web form provided by the FreedomWorks web site but inverting the message:

1. Click on the following link: http://tinyurl.com/lfxh3t (FreedomWorks web site)
2. Change the Subject line to "Vote YES on Obamacare"
3. Copy-and-paste the following altered form of the message body:

Public support for Obamacare has been faltering the last few weeks, and I believe that much of that is due to the incoherent scare tactics by the opposition. I hope that the American people can count on your courageous support of a government takeover of health care.

Small businesses can’t afford the trillions of dollars being wasted through the private health care industry. Given the growing size of our deficits and debt, neither can the taxpayers. Please provide your political support of a government plan that would put a votes-minded government body between me and my doctor, which is far better than a profit-minded corporate body. Government represents we the people, corporations represent CEOs and shareholders.