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.

I’m sitting here at my college’s library, typing on a computer. I just got out of a Sociology class where, after a lecture on domestic abuse, the professor decided to have a class discussion about gay marriage.

For the record, this is the professor who has, in previous classes, praised Karl Marx for having “a lot of good things to say,” condemned the U.S. government for not building houses for the homeless, criticized Bush for his supposed mistreatment of Muslims post 9/11, and so on and so forth.

In short, I am stuck in a class with a professor who is the perfect example of the far-left professors who dominate our nation’s (mostly) far-left universities. (Thank goodness for places like Hillsdale College and Patrick Henry College, no?)

Anyway, it appeared that a large majority of the kids in this class saw nothing wrong with gay marriage. Of course, maybe it just appeared that way since maybe all the conservative kids (like me) stayed mostly quiet. But on an estimate, I’d say that probably two/thirds of the class appeared to support gay marriage.

If this is any indication of what’s on the way for our nation, gay marriage is coming soon. And there won’t be anything we as conservatives will be able to do. Right now a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but how many of those Americas are, say, 40 years and older? In 20 years, our population will have changed, and it seems to me that our population will be growing more liberal. And there is nothing we can really do about it.

Depressing thought, no? I agree. Sitting through a college class like this is the most depressing things a conservative can do. Especially when you listen to some of the things students (and the professor say):

Gay marriage won’t affect heterosexuals, so why should they object?

If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, and it doesn’t matter if they’re the same sex.

And so on and so forth. My question to our readers is this: what do you think is the most effective way to refute the above arguments? And what do you think about the future of our country?

Even those of us who are not Catholic will be interested in hearing that an Italian court is going to decide whether Jesus ever existed or not—and whether the Roman Catholic Church is breaking the law by teaching that he did exist.

Via CNN.com:

ROME, Italy (Reuters)—Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

An Italian court is tackling Jesus—and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

“I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is “Abuso di Credulita Popolare” (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is “Sostituzione di Persona,” or impersonation.

The judge who has presided over the hearing has repeatedly tried to dismiss the case, but to no avail. You can read the entire story here.

In yet another disturbing example of what is happening to our friends in Britain, a retired Christian couple was told by police that their (religious) beliefs regarding homosexuality were close to a “hate crime”:

Police questioned a retired couple for 80 minutes about their “homophobic” views after they asked their local council if they could display their Christian literature next to gay rights leaflets, it was reported last night.

Joe and Helen Roberts said that police officers warned them that their actions “were close to a hate crime” after they complained to Wyre Borough Council about its gay rights policies.

The couple claimed that the police told them they were “walking on eggshells”.

Mr Roberts, from Fleetwood, Lancashire, said he had been offended because of the council’s distribution of the gay rights leaflets and its promotion of its theatre as a venue for civil partnership ceremonies.

He said he complained to Paul Deacon, the council officer responsible for Wyre’s part in the Navajo Charter Mark campaign being run by several local authorities to offer assistance to gay and lesbian people.

Mr Roberts, 73, told the Daily Mail: “I told him I was offended. I asked him if I could put Christian literature on display alongside the gay material. He said I couldn’t because it would offend gay people.

“I said we had no objection to gay people, but we thought that homosexual practice was wrong and we were offended by the gay culture which the council is promoting.

“They warned me that being discriminatory and homophobic is in line with hate crime. The phrase they used was that we were ‘walking on eggshells’. I asked the officer, if I phoned the police with a complaint that the council were discriminating against Christians would he go to interview them?”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Peter Glover at Wires from the Bunker has some interesting thoughts, as does Michael Iliff at Turkey Farm Tales.

Were you aware that there is a push for universal “mental health” screening across the United States, beginning in infancy?

It’s something that has been on the horizon for a while now. Conservative education watchdogs (like those at EdWatch) are understandably against this disturbing project due to obvious reasons.

But now our worst fears are being confirmed: a chilling article in the Washington Post ponders the idea of whether so-called “bias” can be an “illness.” The article provides a perfect example of where “universal mental health screening” may be headed—or perhaps, where certain people want it to lead.

Take a look at some excerpts from this article:

“...some [mental health practitioners] are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”

“Perpetrators of hate crimes could become candidates for treatment and physicians would become arbiters of how to distinguish ‘ordinary prejudice’ from pathological bias.”

“Darrel A. Regier, director of research at the psychiatric association, said he supports research into whether pathological bias is a disorder.”

“Doctors who treat inmates at the California State Prison outside Sacramento concur: They have diagnosed some forms of racist hatred among inmates and administered antipsychotic drugs. ‘We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders,’ said Shama Chaiken, who later became a divisional chief psychologist for the California Department of Corrections, at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. ‘Treatment with antipsychotics does work to reduce these prejudices.’

“Chicago psychiatrist Bell said he has not made up his mind on whether bias can be pathological. But in proposing a research agenda for the next edition of psychiatry’s DSM of mental disorders, Bell and researchers from the Mayo Clinic, McGill University, the University of California at Los Angeles and other academic institutions wrote: ‘Clinical experience informs us that racism may be a manifestation of a delusional process, a consequence of anxiety, or a feature of an individual’s personality dynamics.’

Conservatives (and Christians) need to be aware that things like this are actually happening!

In many cases, so called “bias” is already being treated as a crime. A recent column by Melanie Phillips in the British The Daily Mail describes a recent encounter over an alleged “homophobic” incident:

When the new Civil Partnership Act came into force last week, family values campaigner Lynette Burrows took part in a discussion on BBC Radio Five Live about its implications.

During the programme, Ms Burrows said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption, she said, was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents.

To her astonishment, the following day she was contacted by the police who said a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her. She had committed no crime but, said the police, it was policy to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were ‘priority crimes’. Such action was ‘all about reassuring the community’.

Far from being thus reassured, it is difficult adequately to express one’s shock and abhorrence ­ not at Ms Burrows, but at the actions and attitudes of the police. What kind of a society has this become where, if someone expresses an opinion which falls foul of the politically approved doctrines of the day, the police start feeling their collar?

Freedom of speech is supposed to be the bedrock value of a liberal society. It should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be committed, such as incitement to violence or encouraging terrorism.

In the case of Ms Burrows, no crime had been committed. It was simply that her views fell foul of the doctrine that to criticise the behaviour of self-designated victim groups is to be pronounced guilty of prejudice.

Is the U.S. far behind?

WorldNetDaily is reporting that two federally funded housing facilities have told residents they can’t sing Christmas carols and they can’t decorate their own apartment doors with religious symbols!

Sounds unbelievable, doesn’t it? According to Liberty Council, who is taking up the case against these housing officials, it actually happened:

In a statement, [Liberty Council] says the Housing Resource Development Corporation has informed those senior citizens living in its Winter Park, Fla., subsidized housing facility that they may not sing Christmas carols, nor may they have outside religious groups or churches sing Christmas carols in the facility . . . The managers reportedly have barred Christmas decorations from the lobby and the day rooms on each floor, and have prohibited decorations with religious connotations on individuals’ entry doors.

The “may not sing Christmas carols” part is a bit unclear, but if it means that people can’t even sing Christmas carols by themselves in their own apartments, that is truly pathetic. These housing managers ought to be fired.

Liberty Council president Matthew Staver put it best:

Some of these elderly citizens and persons with disabilities will celebrate their final Christmas in these housing facilities. It is unthinkable that these housing authorities would rob the elderly and the dependent residents of their joy in celebrating Christmas. It is hard to imagine what these officials are thinking when they tell senior citizens that they may not celebrate Christmas, and then in the same breath, seek to justify their discrimination on the basis of inclusion. Forbidding these senior and dependent residents from celebrating Christmas is the most exclusionary act imaginable.

UPDATE! World Magazine Blog has picked up the story, and they are reporting that after Liberty Council threatened a law suit and World Magazine began investigating the incident, the “official story changed.” Apparently Christmas celebrations are now allowed.

There’s an old saying, “All’s well that ends well,” but I don’t think it really applies here. This type of thing is becoming way too common in our society today.

That’s just messed up.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland public school students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving — as long as it’s not God.

And that is how it should be, administrators say.

This website on “hate crimes” provides a simple and clear answer to those wondering what the problem with so-called hate crime laws are:

“Hate Crime” laws are Orwellian thought-control regulations which set up different levels of punishment for a given crime, depending on what someone was thinking when a crime was committed, and depending on who the victim was.

Obviously every criminal action is addressed by a law that is already on the books. The push for hate-crime laws is just an attempt to increase the power and influence of the central federal government . . .

“Hate crime” laws are not about reducing crime or improving our society; they are about control. Hate crime laws are used as a means of providing special privileges for protected classes of people — blocs of voters — especially minorities and homosexuals. The manufacture and enforcement of thought crime laws can put an end to individual liberty and respect for the federal government.

There is a huge list of links on the web page as well. Having only looked at a few, I can’t endorse all of them, but many of them certainly look interesting and worth checking out.

Did you know that the Republican controlled Congress just recently passed a hate crimes act that creates “a Federal offense for violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim”?

Neither did I, until I found this report at the Human Events blog. Apparently this happened with “no notice,” and the only “good” thing to come of it is that the vote was recorded. Somewhere around 20 percent of Republicans either voted for the bill or abstained from voting (i.e., didn’t vote against the bill).

Republicans are doing a darn good job of acting like Democrats lately. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think they’re ruining our country more efficiently than the Dems! But I know better than that—I know they’re really conservatives who support family values and the war in Iraq. So I won’t complain and I’ll keep voting for them like the blind supporter I am.

Until we lose the right to vote, anyway.

I earlier reported on a bill the California legislature passed essentially approving gay marriage.

Today I found out via the World Magazine blog that Governor Schwarzeneggar, besides vetoing that particular bill as promised, also vetoed two other, less trumpeted bills:

In California, Schwarzenegger on Wednesday also vetoed two other bills backed by homosexual activists. One, AB 866, sponsored by San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee, would have urged candidates to sign a “code of fair campaign practices” that would ban any speech critical of homosexuality or transgenderism. Although signatures would be voluntary, the bill was designed to single out pro-family candidates and, in effect, silence them on sexual morality issues.

The other bill, AB 738, sponsored by Democrat Joe Nation (Marin and Sonoma counties, near San Francisco), would have required petition signature gatherers to wear buttons saying that they are paid workers. The latter bill was obviously designed to hinder efforts to get the 1.2 million signatures currently being collected toward placing two pro-marriage amendments on the ballot. CWA is part of a coalition, ProtectMarriage.com that supports The California Constitutional Marriage Amendment, which has this language:

A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

Good for Arnold! And since we’re on the subject of “transgenderism,” World Blog also had a recent post on a new constitutional right that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has created out of thin air—I mean, discovered—for prisoners:

Marc Levin sent an email note reporting that “Several weeks ago the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prisoners in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi generally have a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded sex change treatment.” The case is Praylor v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice (5th Cir. 08/26/2005). The court did not award the inmate the particular treatment he wanted, but opined that a “prison facility must afford the transsexual inmate some form of treatment based upon the specific circumstances of each case.”

I guess denying prisoners sex-change treatments must fall under the realm of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Don’t forget who ends up paying for these treatments, either!