An Instructive Juxtaposition

The Obama administration's views toward free speech with regards to religion seem to be predicated on how violent the proponents of a given religion are willing to get. This is vividly illustrated with a couple of headlines from the end of the week: State Department spending $70G on Pakistan ads denouncing anti-Islam film

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video. In the ad, Obama is seen talking about America's tradition of religious tolerance and Clinton is seen saying that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the video that contains vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. "We absolutely reject its content and message," Clinton says in the advertisement.

This, on top of earlier outing the filmmaker and an American Embassy's initial response and defense of an apologetic tweet shows an administration incredibly sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Compare that with a piece of "art" that offends another well-known religion: WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

Maybe if Christians attacked the gallery where the piece was being shown en masse and killed some people along the way the White House would pay attention. No, that isn't a call to violence. But it is an idea that is being promoted by an administration that bends over backwards to apologize for free speech while ignoring the concerns of the "bitter clingers" to a religion that has done more to earn the moniker "religion of peace" than Islam. For the record, I don't think the administration should publicly denounce either the anti-Islamic film or the "Piss Christ" piece. But it has invested a lot of time and money in bowing and scraping to Islam in order to promote the idea that the United States respects all religions. If that's true, then be consistent. Right now, the message is that the U.S. will respect any religion that is willing to burn and kill.

Finally, It's Safe To Vacation In Afghanistan Again

The Taliban in Afghanistan have taken a new approach in their dealings with Afghan civilians. The new code of conduct bars such Geneva-Convention-approved acts as the cutting off of tongues, ears and lips, and burning down schools. I've already booked my vacation!

I found this passage particularly interesting:

American and Afghan analysts see the Taliban’s effort as part of a broad initiative that employs every tool they can muster, including the Internet technology they once denounced as un-Islamic. Now they use word of mouth, messages to cellphones and Internet videos to get their message out.

Funny how fluid religion can be for some. That the Taliban now, when they discover they need it, can embrace something they once denounced as forbidden by their religion reveals to me how seriously I should take their brand of Islam.


Crossposted at Say Anything.

Jesus Is Just Alright With Darwin

In what appears to be the Roman Catholic Church's move to distance itself from Intelligent Design, the Vatican has announced that Church doctrine is compatible with the theory of evolution. This isn't the first time the Church has shown faith in evolution. This announcement seems more like a reaffirmation of the Church's guidance that the Bible isn't to be taken literally (at least not all the time).

Good for the Church. I always thought the Evolution vs. Creationism argument was one that didn't need to be had. Evolution proposes a process in which life came to be on this planet and how it has changed since the beginning. It doesn't attempt to answer the question of how the process itself was created. Or by whom.