Just a quick reminder that a new issue of Virtue Magazine should be coming out sometime this coming Monday! Unfortunately, I’m a little short on time here, so there will be no “preview” of the articles in this next issue. Just remember to eventually make your way back here to check out the new articles and the discussion!

The flap in Europe about the cartoons depicting Muhammad caused a staggering amount of political correctness, even in the U.S. Here is the latest example, this time from two bookstores who are refusing to carry a magazine that has some of the cartoons printed in it:

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Certainly these stores have a right to decide what they do and do not want to run, and they are exercizing that right in this situation. Having said that, the reasons they are giving—”the safety and security of our customers and employees”—is extremely interesting and eye-opening. Perhaps the stores were afraid they would face something similar to what happened over in Europe? After all, it’s a bit of an understatement to say that many Muslims didn’t exactly take a peaceful approach when objecting to and protesting the cartoons.

“Zebra killings.” That’s the title of the latest post on the Chronicles Magazine blog. In it, author Roger McGrath complains that whenever whites commit crimes against blacks, the incidents receive exceptional amounts of media coverage. Meanwhile, according to McGrath, for every violent crime whites commit against blacks, blacks commit 13 against whites.

What are “zebra killings”? They were a series of murders throughout California, and resulted in 15 dead and nine injuried in the San Francisco area alone. More than 70 people may have been murdered state-wide. Writes McGrath:

The victims were selected for one reason only: They were white. The Zebra perpetrators were Death Angels, a group of Black Muslims determined to exterminate the white race. They were awarded “wings” for their murders. White children were considered the most valuable targets, followed by white women, and then white men. Black Muslims subscribe to a theology of black supremacy—something rarely mentioned by the media when describing Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Whites are “blue-eyed devils,” an evil race created thousands of years ago by Yacub, a wicked black scientist.

You can read about some of the murders and the victims, although it gets to be pretty brutal stuff. What is McGrath’s point?

Most of the crimes, many horrific, are mentioned only briefly by the news media or go unreported. Nor do they find their way into textbooks. While nearly every American is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas, very few know that whites were killed by blacks in a similar manner before and after the Byrd killing. Neither can more than a few Americans identify the Zebra killings of the 1970’s.

Agent Tim has written A Sorrowful Memory, A Great Reminder, an excellent post that reviews what happened with Terri Schiavo. It has been almost a year since Schiavo’s feeding tube was permanently removed.

Agent Tim also has a list of other bloggers who have solemnly marked the anniversary.

In other news . . . .

A former Muslim is now facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity—in Afghanistan. (I will refrain from any comments on how this could happen in a country that the U.S. theoretically liberated.) As Michelle Malkin noted on her blog, this story hasn’t received nearly enough attention. Here are the details from VOA News:

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country’s strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan’s new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity.

Under Afghanistan’s new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

Interestingly enough, those who have paid attention to the goings-on in Iraq know that the Iraq constitution is eerily similar to Afghanistan’s. The Iraq constitution states in Article 2: “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation,” and: “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” (See the full text of the Iraq constitution here.)

But back to the news story:

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. “I am,” he says, “a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ.”

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

La Shawn Barber has been blogging about this case, as has this woman, who writes:

It makes me humble and quite ashamed of myself when I read of the bravery and strength of faith exhibited by those who choose Christianity when it is the hardest thing to be.

Others who have posted some exceptionally interesting thoughts about the case: Junkyard Blog, Below the Beltway, and others.

The general consensus seems to be so far, “This is what we fought for?”

Neither the Afghan nor the U.S. president have spoken out against the case so far, although they may not have been aware of this until very recently, or may still not be aware of it.

We’ve put together a survey with the goal of learning how we can improve Virtue Magazine, especially when it comes to what type of articles our readers want to see more of in our mag.

It’s a short survey, and will only take a minute or two to fill out. You can find a link to the survey page on the right hand toolbar under “More Information,” or you can just click here.

There’s an Associated Press story out today, and it’s one of the oddest stories I’ve seen in quite a while. It’s about this man who is suing his city for damages when a dump truck backed into his car. The only problem? This man is suing himself, because he was the person driving the dump truck!

LODI, Calif. – When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey’s car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn’t stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.

City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can’t sue her own husband . . . . But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has “the right to sue the city because a city’s vehicle damaged my private vehicle.”

In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount – $4,800.

“I’m not as nice as my husband is,” she said.

I feel for a person who is unfortunate enough to back one vehicle into another vehicle he owns. It’s a bit hard to sympathize with someone who then files such a ridiculous lawsuit, though. File this one under the “what is our country coming to?” category.

Another brand new issue of Virtue Magazine will be coming out this Saturday, featuring a number of articles definitely worth checking out!

Among the highlights:

President Without A Party by Samuel Ashwood
A look at John Tyler, one of the most obscure presidents in United States history.

Unwanted: Jayde by Theresa Moss
A 16-year old discovers she is six-weeks’ pregnant with twins, and aborts them both. But what happens when one of the twins survives the abortion?

Remembering Mayberry and Looking Beyond The Headlines by Derek Wallace
A look back at The Andy Griffith Show and actor Don Knotts; and a book review of Charles Colson’s Burden of Truth: Defending Truth in an Age of Unbelief.

In addition, Alessandra Kroger and Noah Stansbury engage in a friendly point/counterpoint with each other over the question: were the Articles of Confederation originally passed by the Continental Congress in 1777 flawed? Was the U.S. Constitution the right answer?

Also in this issue: Samuel Ashwood continues his series on World War II, and Derek Wallace continues his series, Gunning for the Presidency!

In the past, I’ve written several posts about experiences I’ve had with liberalism in various college classes, including a “social problems” class where we have “discussed” gay marriage and the teacher has praised Karl Marx, and an art class where the teacher appeared to think that images of the Statue of Liberty and American flag were inappropiate, “loaded images.”

Those situations pale with a Philosophy/Logic class we had today however. During the class, we watched a Penn and Teller “Bull——” DVD about creationism, evolution, and the battle over teaching the two in public schools.

Aware that Penn and Teller are outspoken athiests who have a penchant for vulgarity, I began taking notes while watching the video. I’m glad I did, because it turned out to be one of the most one-sided and biased hatchet jobs of creation science I’ve ever seen. Here are the results:

1. Penn opened the film by referring to creationists as “pesky creationists,” and later called creationists “a—holes.”

2. Teaching creationism was equated with teaching religion.

3. Opponents of creationism were referred to as “sensible.”

4. Claimed that creationists are “trying to sneak their creationist crap past us.”

5. Mocked creationist debater Duane Gish, and called him “a harmless crank.”

6. Accused creationists of “terrorizing classrooms” and “destroying science.”

7. Referred to Noah’s Flood (as described in the Bible) as a “party flood” while running clips of animated cartoons.

8. Referred to the “crackpot claims” of creationism, and generally portrayed creationists as morons and idiots.

9. Showed a scene from the movie “Inherit the Wind” when mentioning the John Scopes trial in 1925. (“Inherit the Wind” has been shown to be wildly inaccurate in its portrayal of actual events, and biased toward evolution and Clarence Darrow, and against creationism and William Jennings Brian.)

10. Referred to the “desperate dilluded ear” of creationists.

11. Referred to the Bible (or at least to Genesis) as “fiction.”

12. Portrayed creationists as people who are “stealing our liberty.”

There was more, but these were the “highlights” from the 30-minute film. While the video interviewed at least 5 evolutionists, only 1 creation scientist (Gish) was interviewed. I believe there was at least one place where Penn and Teller (or whoever produces these videos) engaged in some sort of deception, because at one point, Penn asks: “so what evidence is there for creation?”

Immediately we cut to a clip of Dr. Gish, who, for some reason, begins talking about the Grand Canyon and how it could only be caused by the flood. The video then switches to mocking the idea of a global flood, leaving uninformed viewers with the idea that the grand canyon is, apparently, the only evidence for creation.

Dr. Gish is right of course, but I doubt that is what any creationist would first talk about when asked, “What evidence is there for creation?” I have a feeling whoever was interviewing Gish asked him a question concerning either the flood or the grand canyon, to which Gish responded. The producers then took this response and pasted it into a completely different question, where the viewer assumes Gish has just been asked, “what evidence is there for creation?”

The video—while asserting the whole time that evolution is fact and all the facts support it—never, at any point, provides evidence. Nor is there a serious attempt to either present or rebut creationist arguments.

Incidentally, the one thing Penn and Teller had right was when they mocked creationists for not even knowing what a “theory” in science is. This is something creationists need to learn in order to be taken seriously:

STOP REFERRING TO EVOLUTION AS “JUST A THEORY”!

I’ll quote from wikipedia here:

“In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts.”

When a creationists says “evolution is just a theory,” what he means is it’s an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, not a fact. But the person who refers to evolution as such reveals his ignorance of science, since in science, a “theory” means something that is “plausible or scientifically acceptable.” (dictionary.com)

——————————————————

There was really no point to this long post, but I thought some people might be interested in learning that this kind of film is being shown in college classes. A “logic” class, no less.

To be fair to the professor in this class, he’s a nice guy and he’s a good lecturer. And I do like him, although not nearly as much as I did before the video. This is the last weekday before spring break starts, and this was something of a throwaway class, and attendence was not required. At the beginning of class, he allowed the students who showed up to vote from two different DVDs, so it’s not like he completely forced this Penn and Teller DVD on us. But I still think it says a lot that he would even show this DVD in a classroom setting like this. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does disgust me.

Nothing quite so clearly illustrates the importance and ferocity of the “culture war” as seeing it in a classroom where you are paying thousands of dollars for your own education.

Conservative David Horowitz recently spoke at Duke University, where he unsurprisingly had to deal with heckling and jeering from a small part of the audience:

The protesting audience members sat together in the left front rows of Page Auditorium. Some laughed and heckled at several of Horowitz’s statements throughout his 45-minute lecture.

At times, Horowitz directed comments toward them.

When Horowitz said “professors are teaching students that America is the “Great Satan,” the protesting group laughed loudly. The response prompted Horowitz to say, “We’ve got some people on mushrooms in here.”

Another time when audience members yelled out at his comments, Horowitz asked them, “didn’t your mother teach you manners?” This drew an ovation from the rest of the audience.

Obviously this kind of poor behavior is bad enough. But the scary part is, originally some sort of “student strip protest” was being organized, and it was being organized by an associate professor at the school! Check out the link above to read more details.

I think Horowitz handled things the best way possible, and I’m very happy to hear that he received applause for his “manners” comment. Of course, the rude liberal behavior Horowitz had to handle was pretty mild in comparison to what other conservative figures have had to handle. William Kristol and Ann Coulter have been the targets of pies, while Pat Buchanan was once doused with salad dressing. (Coincidentally, it’s amazing how well these conservatives generally handle themselves under these stressful circumstances.)

I’ve also done a blog post dealing with Ann Coulter, where I comment on how Coulter had to cut off a recent speech due to continuous booing and jeering.

John Lofton of The American View is quickly becoming one of my favorite political commentators.

And this is why.

As we’ve undoubtedly all heard by now, South Dakota has just banned nearly all abortions, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. (Obviously it’s great to see what can happen when truly pro-life conservatives actually do something about these murders en masse, and not just pay lip service to the pro life position, as some do. )

On a recent radio show, Lofton debated Kate Looby, head of the only Planned Parenthood abortion center in South Dakota. You can read the entire transcript here, where you will see Lofton taking Ms. Looby to school when it comes to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. But undoubtedly, this is the most interesting part of the exchange:

[Q is Lofton, A is Looby]

Q: Well, let me ask you, finally here — I interviewed Kate Michelman the other day about her new book and I’ve talked to her and pro-lifers and I’ve asked them: How do you characterize what it is that is aborted in an abortion? What words or phraseology do you use?

A: I’m sorry?

Q: In other words, how do you characterize what happens in an abortion? What happens – what is aborted in an abortion? What are the words or phrase that you use to characterize what’s aborted in an abortion?

A: John, I agreed to come on to talk to you on the radio if we were talking about the um, the state of South Dakota’s ban on abortion.

Q: Right.

A: If you want to get into details of abortion care here that wasn’t —.

Q: It was a simple question.

A: That was not how we agreed to do the interview.

Q: Look, first of all – this is clearly within the topic we are talking about – abortion. Because when I talked about an unborn baby or an innocent baby unborn with Kate Michelman she corrected me and said it’s a fetus. So I’ve started out now to ask you what is the language or phraseology that you use to describe what it is being aborted in an abortion. Just tell me in a sentence or two because I’m sure you’ve used some phraseology in the past to talk about that.

A: We’ve typically talked about terminating a pregnancy.

Q: Terminating a pregnancy. Okay. I saw something several weeks ago that I wish I hadn’t seen (a video of an abortion.) Have you ever seen an abortion?

A: Of course.

Q: Well, it was horrifying to me — to see little arms and legs being torn apart and come gushing out —.

A: John, I’m going to stop the interview now.

Q: I figured you would.

A: I’m not interested in this – this is ridiculous.

Q: I figured you would. I wouldn’t want to defend it either if I were you.

She hangs up the phone.

First of all, it is incredibly sad to see this. But at the same time, it’s really amazing to see what happens to pro-abortion advocates when conservatives actually confront them with what abortion actually is. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that the every day American and especially the every day high school student needs to be exposed to—the complete collapse of liberals when confronted with the brutality of the thing they defend and support at virtually all costs.

Kudos to Mr. Lofton for having the guts to confront this woman on his radio show! Hopefully examples like this will help people sitting on the fence recognize what an evil abortion is.