Barbarians Murder Girl in Somalia

What century is this, again? The Associated Press reports that Islamic militants murdered a 13-year-old girl by stoning her to death in a packed stadium. Her crime? She was raped by three men, and thus she committed adultery.

While this girl's death is particularly gruesome, plenty more share in her horror. The AP notes, "A quarter of Somali children die before age 5..."

The Wages of Mysticism

If you thought the days of witch burnings were behind us, here's the latest news from Kenya:

In late May, news outlets in Kenya told the story of 15 people, mostly elderly women, who were murdered in a witch hunt near the town of Kisii. The killings shocked the nation.

Villagers said more than 100 people gathered machetes and knives and stormed the village of Kegogi after midnight.

"They started banging on the doors, they broke into the house and then they killed our grandmother inside," says Justus Bosire. "The mob was screaming and we panicked. We ran away and they came to our house and burned it to the ground."

When Bosire returned to his grandmother's house, he found her dead on the floor in a bed of embers. His father is missing.

"They claim that my grandmother and father were practicing witches," Bosire says.

And you're in deep trouble if you have light skin in Tanzania, reports The New York Times (via Noodle Food):

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania -- Samuel Mluge steps outside his office and scans the sidewalk. His pale blue eyes dart back and forth, back and forth, trying to focus. The sun used to be his main enemy, but now he has others. Mr. Mluge is an albino, and in Tanzania now there is a price for his pinkish skin. "I feel like I am being hunted," he said.

Discrimination against albinos is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but recently in Tanzania it has taken a wicked twist: at least 19 albinos, including children, have been killed and mutilated in the past year, victims of what Tanzanian officials say is a growing criminal trade in albino body parts.

Many people in Tanzania -- and across Africa, for that matter -- believe albinos have magical powers. They stand out, often the lone white face in a black crowd, a result of a genetic condition that impairs normal skin pigmentation and strikes about 1 in 3,000 people here. Tanzanian officials say witch doctors are now marketing albino skin, bones and hair as ingredients in potions that are promised to make people rich.

We in the science-minded West find such stories difficult to fathom. Yet such mystic-based brutality used to be widespread throughout Europe.

The wages of mysticism is death.

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire is a documentary that explores the issue of abortion in America. It gives plenty of time to both sides, but it also allows religious extremists in the debate to indict themselves. The documentary is worth viewing not only for those interested in the issue on both sides, but for those interested in the nasty turns that religion can take. Various Christians shown throughout the movie literally advocate and/or commit murder and terrorism in the name of God.

The main problem with the documentary is its editing. It is severely disjointed; it keeps jumping back and forth between issues, speakers, and stories for no apparent reason. I lost track of the number of superfluous songs included in it. (If I wanted to watch music videos, I'd get MTV.) A number of the clips, such as from Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes, are completely pointless (and the bit from Keyes is also taken out of context). At 152 minutes, the film is painfully long; I yearned for it to end. Cut of its fluff, it easily could have fit within an hour and forty-five minutes.

The documentary contains three main parts (mashed together). It explores the views of opponents of abortion, tracks a thoughtful but incomplete debate among left-leaning intellectuals, and shows abortion procedures.

The views of opponents of abortion fall into two main categories: abortion should be outlawed, and abortion should be violently protested as well as outlawed. Most prominent of the legislation-only camp is Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame. McCorvey describes how, following her episodes of self-mutilation and involvement with new-age mysticism, she found Jesus and changed her mind on abortion. "I'm a servant of Christ now," she says at an event.

The general theme among the religious opponents of abortion is that "life" begins at conception and that God prohibits abortion.

What the documentary does not do is explore nuances of opinion. Many people only want some restrictions on late-term abortions, yet nobody from that camp was interviewed for the film.

The film is downright frightening when it shows interviews and talks by those who favor violence. Following are several of the scary quotes:

"We will not back down on upholding the law of God. If this nation, if Bill Clinton, is going to reject the law of God, then this nation is going to die [i.e., self-destruct]."

"I think they should execute blasphemers [including those who say "god damn it"]... because that's what the Bible teaches."

"Abortionists should be executed."

"They've been seduced by Satan... We're coming right into the middle of Satan's territory up here in Colorado..."

One fellow (who also offered the quote directly above) argues that advocates of legal abortion consist of three types of people: satan worshippers, homosexuals, and "the pro-death." But this guy clearly is delusional; he also claims that he's seen employees of abortion clinics barbecue the aborted fetuses. I don't think interviewing insane people contributes much to the discussion.

Much of the documentary reviews the various murders committed by Christian opponents of abortion. When one of the murderers is sentenced to execution, several people supported the murderer. The film interviews one woman who was a victim of a bombing of an abortion clinic.

One person discusses Christian Reconstructionism, the movement of Rushdoony. The goal of the movement, according to the documentary, is to establish religious law; implement the death penalty for abortion, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, heresy, apostasy, and witchcraft (among other things); and generally to establish a Christian theocracy.

Much of the film is dated and seems so; at this point the religious right has fairly effectively dampened calls for violence against the "abortion industry."

The left-leaning intellectuals include Nat Hentoff -- who, notably, opposes abortion on secular grounds -- Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Singer. Not surprisingly, the overriding theme of these people is moral ambiguity and subjectivism. Dershowitz argues, "Everybody is right;" it's "very, very difficult" to draw "black and white lines." Chomsky says, "The values we hold are not absolute."

Of course there is a gray boundary here; even Ayn Rand, who adamantly favored legal abortion, drew a distinction between embryos and fetuses just before birth (see Ayn Rand Answers, page 17). But, for Rand, the emphasis was on the morally clear regions -- particularly the early stages versus an independent child at birth. (See her additional comments.) Those interviewed for the film emphasize the moral grayness at the expense of the morally certain.

However, the documentary is obviously editing content to make a point. One woman claims that we should move away from the language of rights, which implies right and wrong. The film pits the view of moral relativism and subjectivism against Christian absolutist dogma. The film ignores -- or includes only incidentally -- the possibility that moral clarity may be reached outside of the context of religious dogma.

The film conflates general moral ambiguity with the fact that women should choose whether to get an abortion based on their personal conditions. But those are two separate issues. The claim that women have an absolute moral right to get an abortion has nothing to do with whether a particular woman should choose to get an abortion. Similarly, freedom of speech says nothing about whether an individual should go into journalism.

The film's greatest failing is to never bring to the forefront the distinction between a potential and an actual person. Hentoff, the outlier, argues that an embryo is "a developing human being," and no one debates this. But the relevant distinction is that an embryo is a potential person, whereas a born child is an actual, independent person. The documentary should have included interviews with people who argue this position.

All of the film's favored intellectuals, of course, endorse welfare statism, regardless of their stance on abortion. Chomsky, for instance, derides the U.S. for not giving more in foreign aid.

The film contrasts the secular left-wingers with the Bible-thumping anti-government types. One fellow argues that we should establish laws "as outlined by God," which, for him, entails the right to keep and bear arms, the abolition of the IRS, and "constitutional government" (whatever that means for him). Never have I been so struck by the danger of affiliating with kooks who hold superficially similar political positions. As a secularist, I support both legal abortion and economic liberty. I have practically nothing in common with Chomsky, but I have even less in common with those who think that welfare should be abolished because it violates God's will for our allegedly "Christian Nation." Of course, my perspective is not one that the documentary chooses to explore, for it has its own agenda.

The film also shows two women getting abortions. One woman gets hers relatively late, at five months, while another gets hers early. One problem with the film is that it does not discuss how many abortions occur within the first trimester, why some abortions are performed later, or what Roe v. Wade has to say about late-term abortions. The unfortunate impression left by the film, then, is that abortions typically or often involve fully-developed fetuses, which is simply not the case.

Still, the documentary is worth viewing despite its many faults and shortcomings, so long as viewers are aware of those issues.

Taliban Murders Young Couple

Various practitioners of Islam continue to perpetrate and advocate murder in the name of their religion. Following are two recent stories reported by Fox.

The first story involves the murder of a young couple for the "crime" of getting married without the consent of their parents:

A couple found guilty of adultery by an Islamic "qazi" court was stoned to death by Taliban militants in Pakistan's northwest border region, according to a report in Dawn, Pakistan's English-language newspaper.

The execution, which reportedly took place Monday [March 31], is the first by stoning reported in the region, which borders Afghanistan. "Qazi" courts, which are allowed to administer Islamic law outside the Pakistani judicial system, traditionally have ordered execution by firing squad in cases of adultery.

The married woman, identified as Shano, had allegedly eloped on March 15 with Daulat Khan Malikdeenkhel.

A spokesman for the Taliban said a complaint had been received from the woman's family that she had been abducted by Daulat Khan. They later changed the report to say she had run away with him.

What a bunch of despicable barbarians.

But such insanity exists only in backward cultures of the Middle East, right? The second story, which cites Islam Watch, quotes two European Islamists:

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent. ... Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

What's astounding is how many people in the West can continue to ignore such warnings.

The Absurdity of 'Revirgination'

MSNBC ran a story on February 28 about "revirgination." Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Look, if you've had sex, if you've had children, you are not a virgin. Get over it. No, even if you spend $5,000 for a new hymen -- and who wouldn't want one of those -- you are still not a virgin. (God forbid that the money go for anything that is actually of some value.)

Thankfully, I do not have to spend my time pointing out all of the absurdities of "revirgination," for Diana Hsieh has already done the job. She writes,

Virginity is not even a real quality of a person: it's just an ignorance of and inexperience with sex. Ignorance of sex means incompetence at sex. So for a rational, value-seeking lover, virginity can only be an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, not a positive value. For a person to seek virginity requires a mangled set of sexual values.

There is a very dark side to the story, though:

Dr. Red Alinsod's... typical patient [for hymen reconstruction] may have been born and raised in the United States, but with significant family in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, the Middle East. Without evidence a new bride is a virgin, she risks being rejected, or, worse, the victim of an "honor killing."

For many women around the world -- particularly in Muslim countries -- such threats of murder are difficult to avoid. But surely women "born and raised in the United States" might consider the option of not marrying someone with homicidal siblings. At the cultural level, when women have to lie about their virginity in order not to be murdered, that's a large problem, and surgery is hardly the appropriate remedy.

Saudi Insanity

A story reproduced by Fox -- originally from The Times of February 26 -- reports:

A university professor allegedly caught in a Saudi-style honey trap has been sentenced to 180 lashes and eight months in jail -- for having coffee with a girl. ...

[O]ne senior Saudi journalist told The Times he was Dr. Abu Ruzaiz, a married man in his late 50s with children.

"He is highly respected and above-board. Nobody believes the religious police's version of what happened. The whole of Jeddah (the main city near Mecca) is in uproar about this. Everyone believes he is innocent and was set up," the journalist said.

Contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited in the desert kingdom where religious police, commonly known as mutaween, patrol public places in teams to enforce their brand of ultra-conservative Islam. ... They are under the command of the Saudi Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. ...

Ruzaiz is said to have received a call from a girl purporting to be one of his students who asked to meet to discuss a problem that she did not want to talk about over the phone. The professor agreed to meet at a family cafe, provided she brought her brother along as a chaperone.

When he arrived, he was surprised to find the girl alone, and was promptly surrounded by religious policemen who handcuffed him and hauled him into custody. He was accused of being in a state of khulwa -- seclusion -- with an unrelated woman. ...

In another high-profile case, an illiterate Saudi woman is hoping that King Abdullah will spare her life after she was condemned to death for "witchcraft." Her accusers included a man who claimed that the woman, Fawzi Falih, had made him impotent with her sorcery.

An international human rights group said Falih -- who faces being publicly beheaded -- was allegedly beaten by religious police and forced into fingerprinting a false confession.

Prosecutors are currently investigating 57 young men arrested last week for flirting with girls at shopping centres in Mecca. They were accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to catch the attention of girls.

The Times published an earlier account of the "witch."

Here is yet another story:

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's "Mutaween" police.

And here is a follow-up:

A US businesswoman living in Saudi Arabia fears for her life after the religious police issued a rare statement defending her arrest this month for having coffee with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

According to that Times story, the absurdly named Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice made the following statement:

It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married.

All of these are against the law and it's clear it's against the law. First, for a woman to work with men is against the law and against religion. Second, the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant for families and close relatives.

Yes, some people in Saudi Arabia are upset about these sorts of abuses. But the mere fact that this sort of religious-based fascism exists indicates widespread cultural insanity in that country.

Americans who want "faith-based" politics should look seriously at what that actually means when seriously enforced. No, no American (that I've heard) has complained when a man and woman "laugh and drink coffee together." No, various American Christians merely advocate the complete ban of all abortions from the moment of fertilization, say that "in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death," and call for "the death penalty for homosexuals" and for "Biblical theocratic republics." But at least in America the religious crazies don't get to go around brutalizing people with state sanction and resources.

Muslims for Murder

Recently the authorities broke up an alleged plot to murder a Danish cartoonist for depicting Mohammed. In response, various newspapers republished the cartoon in defense of free speech.

In response, more Muslims called for the murder of the cartoonist.

The AP reports (via Fox News):

Muslims March Against Reprinting of Danish Newspaper Cartoons Depicting Muhammad
Friday, February 15, 2008

Muslims protested Friday in the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and Denmark against the reprinting of a Danish newspaper cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Thousands of residents in the conservative Gaza Strip ruled by the militant Islamic Hamas movement marched in the Jebaliya refugee camp chanting: "What Denmark said is heresy." ...

And in Denmark, a prominent Danish imam urged rioting youth to stop setting fires and hurling rocks at police.

At the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Mahmood Sadiqui said, "We are even ready to sacrifice our life for our beloved Prophet." The AP continues:

About 200 people held a similar rally in Multan, a main city in the eastern Punjab province, burning Danish flags and chanting "Death to the Cartoonist!" ...

Mohammad Imran, a student leader from Islami Jamiat Talba, a student organization linked with Pakistan's largest Islamic political group, Jamaat-e-Islami, called the cartoon "blasphemous."

"We demand the rulers to sever diplomatic ties" with Denmark and Sweden for publishing the cartoons. "The cartoonist and publisher must be hanged."

The call to murder people for drawing pictures is religion-induced insanity. Muslims who support such measures -- or even who fail to publicly condemn them -- are barbarians at war with civilization.

And Westerners who continue to think that such murderous fanatics can be appeased with cash payments or political concessions are delusional.

European Papers Stand Up for Free Speech

When somebody started selling "Looking Good for Jesus" makeup kits in Singapore, Christians complained, as is their political right.

When a Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed in order to make a serious sociopolitical point, some Muslims allegedly tried to kill him.

Thankfully, not only did police disrupt the attempted murder, but various European newspapers republished the cartoon to protest the attempted murder and to stand for free speech. CNN reports:

Newspapers reprint Prophet Mohammed cartoon

Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

The cartoon was originally published by the Jullands-Posten (also spelled "Jyllands") in 2005. In 2006, I republished all of the cartoons at FreeColorado.com, and I also wrote and cowrote articles defending Flemming Rose, who edited the paper at the time of the publications of the cartoons.

CNN quotes Westergaard's comments to the paper's web page: "Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me. However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness."

Thankfully, some people are starting to stand up to that madness.

Dishonor Killings

Recently I wrote about an apparent "honor killing" in Texas, in which a Muslim man allegedly murdered his own daughters for dating.

My wife, who continues to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel (order from Amazon), read me the following quote today:

When I tried to find out about honor killings... -- how many girls were killed every year in Holland by their fathers and brothers because of their precious family honor -- civil servants at the Ministry of Justice would tell me, "We don't register murders based on that category of motivation. It would stigmatize one group in society." The Dutch government registered the number of drug-related killings and traffic accidents every year, but not the number of honor killings, because no Dutch official wanted to recognize that this kind of murder happened on a regular basis. Even Amnesty International didn't keep statistics on how many women around the word were victims of honor killings. ... (pages 295-96)

Talk about multiculturalism run amuck!

Surely Ali is among the bravest women in the world.