Category Archives: religion

USCIRF Alarmed By Blasphemy Amendments in Kuwait

By USCIRF

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today expressed grave concern over the Kuwaiti Parliament’s approval last week of severe new penalties for blasphemy. The Emir of Kuwait has 30 days to approve these penalties before they would become law. The new provisions would impose the death penalty on Muslims who refuse to repent after being found to have insulted God, the Prophet Mohammad, his wives, or the Qur’an. For non-Muslims, the punishment would be up to 10 years in prison; for Muslims who repent, the punishment would be up to five years or a fine.

“These penalties are alarming and contrary to international human rights standards. It is particularly regrettable that a strong ally of the United States and a member of the UN Human Rights Council has taken these steps,” said Leonard Leo, USCIRF Chair. “The Kuwaiti parliament’s approval is especially unfortunate in light of the new consensus resolutions at the Human Rights Council – adopted in both 2011 and 2012 — that focus on fighting religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence without restricting speech.”

USCIRF urges the United States to work with Kuwait to address concerns about intolerant speech through counter-speech and positive measures, including education and outreach, as provided for in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The U.S. government also should urge the Emir of Kuwait to reject the pending blasphemy law amendments and focus instead on criminalizing only incitement to imminent violence. Such a reform would make Kuwaiti law consistent with international human rights standards and the intolerance resolutions that Kuwait supported at the UN.

“These draconian provisions should be rejected because they would place individuals’ lives in jeopardy for exercising their internationally-guaranteed freedoms of religion and expression,” said Leo. “As has been evident during the years USCIRF has monitored religious freedom violations around the world, blasphemy laws do not promote religious harmony as their proponents assert; rather, they exacerbate religious intolerance, extremism, and violence.”

Are Judges More Hostile to Religion Than Founding Fathers Intended?

A recent poll conducted by Ramussen Research shows most Americans answer yes to the question whether judges are more hostile to religion than the founding fathers planned.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of American Adults now believe rulings by judges in recent years regarding religion in public life have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers of the country intended. The Rasmussen national telephone survey found that 28% disagree and believe the judges have correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution. Nineteen percent (19%) were not sure.

What did the founders intend? The survey does not explore that question, but the Constitution does give us a good idea of their plan. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” If Congress cannot not make laws to establish any particular religion or prohibit the exercise of religious views, the Courts cannot interpret laws respecting religion and its private or public practice. However, what states do concerning establishing religions and religious practices is not the business of federal Courts or activists members like the ACLU lawyers. That seemed to be at least part of founders plan.

TMLC Files Lawsuit Challenging the HHS Mandate On Behalf of Legatus – Nation’s Largest Organization of Top Catholic Business Leaders

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced it has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the HHS mandate, on behalf of Legatus, the Nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business CEOs and professional leaders.

Also joining in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs are the Weingartz Supply Company, a Michigan retailer since 1945, and its President who is a member of Legatus. The 42-page Complaint was filed late yesterday afternoon against the Obama administration in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Legatus” is the Latin word for “ambassador”, and its members are called upon to become “ambassadors for Christ” in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives. It was founded in 1987 by Tom Monaghan, the former owner of Domino’s Pizza, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business. The lawsuit was filed on the 25th Anniversary of its founding. Legatus currently has over 4,000 members in 73 chapters located in 31 states.

The first paragraph of the lawsuit succinctly sets forth the nature of the case:

“This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, ‘No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.’”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “Whether you are a Catholic or Protestant or have no religion at all, the free exercise of religion and right of conscience is our most fundamental human right and must be vigorously defended on behalf of all Americans. Or else our constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper with nice sounding words. That’s why I believe every American regardless of religious beliefs has a stake in the successful outcome of this lawsuit.”

The purpose of the lawsuit is to seek a court ruling that permanently blocks the implementation of the HHS Mandate requiring employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. It also claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act enacted by Congress.

Thomas More Law Center attorney, Erin Mersino, is the lead counsel in the lawsuit. Joining as co-counsel is the Law Office of Charles LiMandri, the Law Center’s West Coast Regional Director and a member of Legatus.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Hilda Solis, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments.

When Political Correctness Kills

By Adam Turner

Starting on March 11 and ending on March 19, a terrorist wearing a motorcycle helmet that covered his face conducted a vicious killing spree in Toulouse, France, murdering three French military officers (two of Arab ancestry, one of Caribbean ancestry) and four French Jewish civilians (a 30-year-old Rabbi, his 5-year-old son, his 4-year-old son and an 8-year-old girl). Much speculation as to the possible motives and background of the terrorist followed. On March 21, 2012, the French armed forces surrounded an apartment in Toulouse where the killer lived and released his identity: It was a French Islamist named Mohammed Merah. On March 22, Merah was shot dead while jumping out of his apartment window

What was most disturbing about this terrorist act — aside from its occurrence — was that the elite Western public officials’ and media’s speculation about the true killer, prior to the discovery of his identity, heavily focused (also here and here and here) on the belief that he was a white European neo-Nazi, or perhaps another Anders Breivik, a white, European Christian killer who hated Islam and may have hated Jews.

Granted, the fact that both French Muslims and French Jews had been killed, and the fact that some neo-Nazis had recently been dismissed from the French military, made this a plausible assumption. But it was not the only possible assumption, and it was almost certainly not the most likely one.

The most likely assumption was what was eventually found to be true — that the killer was a Muslim jihadist who hated Jews and hated those “traitorous” fellow Muslims who served in the “infidel” French army. Indeed, not to toot my own horn, but this was my initial belief. The neo-Nazi Frenchmen who were originally focused on had never been accused of any actual violence against anyone, unlike the actual killer, Mohammed Merah.

Merah had numerous acts of violence on his record along with two short prison terms, in 2007 and 2009. And there was plenty more circumstantial evidence pointing to Merah. He had made two trips to Afghanistan and one to Pakistan — vacationing in a war zone, he claimed — had trained in a jihadist camp in Afghanistan, had been caught planting bombs in Afghanistan in 2007 but escaped from jail in 2008 to return to France, terrorized his French neighbors who in 2010 reported him to the police as a physical threat, was arrested in 2011 during his second trip to Afghanistan and sent back to Toulouse, was under surveillance by French authorities since 2008 for his Islamist beliefs and was even on a U.S. no-fly list. In fact, it turns out that after the first terror attack, Merah was actually placed on a list of possible suspects alongside his older brother Abdelkader, but little was done to trace either of them until after the Jewish school massacre, when the police secured the mobile phone of the first victim, the soldier in Montauban, which showed conversations between him and Merah.

Aside from this evidence, there were other good reasons why the police and observers should have suspected an Islamist killer. Since the 1990s, a large majority of the acts of terrorism in the West have been conducted by Islamic jihadists. This is simply a fact. According to one unscientific count, since 1992 there have been 72 Islamist terrorist attacks on Western targets. Taking a more global view, others cite a number of 18,616 terrorist attacks by jihadists since 9/11. Max Boot says “it is undeniable that the most prominent acts of terrorism in the past several decades have been committed by Islamists, whose ideology has displaced Marxism and even nationalism as the primary propellant for terrorism, as it was in the 1960s-1970s.”

Meanwhile, during this same time, there have been very few non-Islamist acts of terrorism. The two most commonly mentioned are the attacks in Oklahoma City in 1995 and in Oslo, Norway in 2011. Breivik, by the way, was not a neo-Nazi, nor a Christian fundamentalist; he was ruled “a paranoid schizophrenic” by a Norwegian court.

Yet, in 2012, when these brutal acts of terrorism occurred in France, the immediate working assumption by the Western elites was that the perpetrator was a neo-Nazi. Let’s be very clear about this. We all understand why this delusional thinking occurs — the desire to be politically correct and to not single out a specific religion as producing most of the world’s terrorists for the past few decades. But facts are facts, and these PC feelings are dangerous. In the Toulouse case, Mohammed Merah was not even hiding, he was sitting in his apartment because he was “confident that police sought a neo-Nazi.” It is even possible that he might have been caught sooner, perhaps prior to the killing of the children, had the French tracked down this terrorist criminal who was well-known to them.

Please remember, political correctness kills. Just ask them.

Adam Turner is Staff Counsel for The Middle East Forum’s Legal Project. The above article was originally published by Daily Caller on March 23, 2012.

National Day of Prayer – One Nation Under God – Thursday May 3rd

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c89IgUz_KX0&w=560&h=315]

National Day of Prayer with Ohio Right to Life

This Thursday during the National Day of Prayer, join Ohio Right to Life at the Statehouse in Columbus to pray for a greater respect for the dignity of each and every human life.

The “One Nation Under God” event begins at 11:45AM on the west side of the Statehouse. Pro-life State Auditor Dave Yost is scheduled as one of the guests, along with Buckeye football coach Urban Meyer. Ohio State basketball guard Aaron Craft is the honorary chairman of this event. Prayers will be offered for government, families, the military, businesses and churches.

If you cannot attend the event on Thursday, please join us in prayer. Let us pray together for an end to abortion and for strength to build a culture of life in our communities. Let us commit ourselves to defend the weakest and pray for courage to be a voice for the voiceless. Let us rejoice and offer thanksgiving for new life
and the precious lives that have been saved through the work of generous men and women across our state.

Ohio Colleges Partner with Hamas-Founded CAIR

By Patrick Poole

A group of six Ohio colleges in the Cleveland area are working together to help provide “new perspectives” about the Middle East and to confront “misinformation” about the region and about Islam specifically. However, the group has chosen a curious partner to represent the American Muslim community: the Muslim Brotherhood-founded and terror-supporting Hamas front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

On Tuesday, the Northeast Ohio Consortium for Middle East Studies (NOCMES) will be hosting Naif al-Mutawa at the City Club of Cleveland for a talk on “Art, Narrative and Muslim Identity.” Later that evening he will appear at Baldwin Wallace College. Al-Mutawa is the CEO of the company that has produced the first series of comic books with Muslim superheroes. The colleges sponsoring NOCMES include Oberlin College, Cleveland State University, John Carroll University, Kent State University, Baldwin-Wallace College, Case Western Reserve University, and Hathaway Brown (an all-girls K-12 private school).

The Tuesday talk is part of NOCMES’ “New Perspectives on Muslim and Middle East Societies” program funded by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), which is funded partially by U.S. taxpayers through the State Department and the National Science Foundation. SSRC’s “Islamic Traditions and Muslim Societies in World Contexts” has awarded a grant to NOCMES funded by the Carnegie Corporation.

A video promoting the NOCMES “New Perspectives” project features Neda Zawahri, associate professor of political science at Cleveland State University. She states:

So when people first meet people from the Middle East they’re first afraid because, is this person going to be a terrorist or an Islamic fundamentalist? But to actually learn that they’re human beings just like them.

It is indeed curious that a video intended to promote a program intended to confront “misinformation” about Muslims and the Middle East would promote such a bigoted and misinformed view about Americans and Westerners in general. (Lest I be accused of taking Zawahri out of context, that statement is the only quote by her that the video itself provides.)

The NOCMES video also features Julia Shearson, identified as executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Ohio chapter. In 2008, Shearson was the most vocal defender of the gender policies at Harvard University which banned men from campus gymnasiums so that Muslim women would not need to have contact with them. Shearson defended the policy during appearances on CNN, Fox News, and other media outlets.

That is not the only connection between NOCMES and CAIR-Ohio. In fact, a flyer for Tuesday’s event at the City Club of Cleveland posted on the NOCMES website identifies CAIR-Ohio as one of NOCMES’ partners.

CAIR’s sordid history of terror support has been noted by Department of Justice prosecutors, who claimed the following during one federal case:

From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.

According to the court testimony of FBI agent Lara Burns in the successful Holy Land Foundation prosecution (the largest terrorism financing trial in American history), the organization was a front for the terrorist group Hamas and was founded in 1994 by Hamas members specifically to support the terrorist group. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator during that trial. The federal judge who tried the case, Jorge Solis, wrote an opinion unsealed in November 2010 stating:

The four pieces of evidence the government relies on, as discussed below, do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.

Judge Solis explored that evidence at length in his decision, ruling against CAIR in their bid to be removed from the trial’s list of unindicted co-conspirators. For this reason, the FBI severed all ties with CAIR in January 2009. In March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller reaffirmed this policy to the House Judiciary Committee, explaining:

We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to their national leadership.

The CAIR-Ohio chapter that NOCMES has partnered with is among the most radical CAIR chapters in the country, with a long list of troubling episodes:

In 1999, CAIR-Ohio rushed to the aid of Muhammad Al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan Al-Shalawi, the two men who the 9/11 Commission and the FBI identified as the 9/11 “dry run” hijackers. CAIR-Ohio president Ahmad Al-Akhras even made statements to Egyptian media attacking the airline for removing the men from the plane at the request of the pilot after they had repeatedly tried to enter the cockpit, claiming the men were being profiled.

Continue reading

Charges Dismissed Against Street Preacher Cited with Disorderly Conduct for Preaching in Public Near Princeton University’s Eating Clubs

The Rutherford Institute has secured a First Amendment victory for a Christian street preacher who was charged with disorderly conduct and accused of engaging in “tumultuous” behavior for preaching in public near Princeton University’s historic eating clubs. Appearing before the Princeton Borough Municipal Court in defense of street preacher Michael Stockwell, Institute attorneys pointed out that Stockwell’s purely religious message, his preaching on a public right-of-way in Princeton, N.J., near the historic University eating clubs, and his use of a small amplifier to make himself heard over the street noise did not constitute tumultuous behavior and were protected by the First Amendment. Stockwell was found not guilty.

“The First Amendment does not permit free speech to be conditioned upon how others feel about the message,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black recognized, ‘The very reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.’”

On Saturday, October 8, 2011, a small group of Christian street preachers including Michael Stockwell attempted to speak about their religious beliefs with passersby near the historic eating clubs near Princeton University. Prior to engaging in this free speech activity, Stockwell reviewed the local noise ordinance and contacted the local police to make sure that he could use a small amplifier to make himself heard over the street noise. Stockwell was assured that there would be no problem with his use of a small amplifier, provided he was not blocking the sidewalk. However, when the street preachers began preaching with the amplifier in a public right-of-way on Prospect Avenue, police ordered them to turn the device off because the police department had received a complaint about their preaching. Although Stockwell explained that he had already cleared the use of the amplifier with the department, he complied with the police’s order. The street preachers then resumed preaching, without the aid of an amplifier to make themselves heard over the noise of the eating clubs, only to be approached by another police officer, who allegedly claimed that they were “scaring” people with their message and ordered the preachers to vacate the public right-of-way. When the street preachers refused to stop preaching, the police issued Stockwell a citation for his prior use of amplification—a charge that was later modified to Disorderly Conduct, which applies to “violent or tumultuous” behavior.

In coming to Stockwell’s defense, attorneys with The Rutherford Institute entered a not guilty plea in the Princeton Borough Municipal Court. During the trial, Institute attorneys asked that the disorderly conduct charge be dismissed on the grounds that Stockwell’s religious message was protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, Institute attorneys took issue with Stockwell being cited for disorderly conduct on the basis of the content of his speech, “tumultuous” or not. Stockwell was found not guilty and the charges against him dismissed. Affiliate attorney F. Michael Daily, Jr. assisted The Rutherford Institute in its defense of Stockwell.

Billionaire’s Wife Attacks Catholic Teaching on Birth Control

By Timothy Herrmann

NEW YORK – C-FAM) Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a Catholic, is telling governments to dismiss the controversial link between contraception and population control and explicitly rejects Catholic social teaching along the way. Her rhetoric is part of her multi-billion dollar foundation’s new “NoControversy” campaign to reinforce universal access to birth control as a priority in the developing world.

Speaking at a TedxChange conference in Berlin, Germany, Gates argued that contraception has been mistakenly associated with population control, abortion, forced sterilization, and mortal sin and insisted they are “side issues” that “have attached themselves to the core idea that men and women should be able to decide when to have a child.”

Yet even Gates herself admitted that for years population control and contraception have become synonymous in the developing world, with countries like India “adopt[ing] unfortunate incentives [and] coercive methods as part of their family planning programs” in the 1960s and indigenous women in Peru being “anesthetized and sterilized without their knowledge” as recently as the 1990s.

Though these coercive practices may have fallen out of favor, it may be far harder for organizations like the Gates Foundation to separate their own promotion of contraception entirely from population control.

In their Annual Letter for 2012, the Gates Foundation draws a direct connection between “unsustainable” population growth and poverty and posits contraception as an essential tool to ensuring that “populations in countries like Nigeria will grow significantly less than projected.” Even recent history shows that governments that make fertility reduction a priority can easily slip into coercive modes such as what Gates recognized happened in Peru not long ago. The US government has said that even goals and timetables for contraceptive use are inherently coercive.

Gates was particularly critical of the Catholic Church. She singled out Catholic social teaching as an obstacle to access to contraception throughout the world, stating that “as a practicing Catholic,” and “in the tradition of the great Catholic scholars,” it is “important to question received teachings,” in particular “the one saying that birth control is a sin.”

Along with the Gates Foundation, organizations like UNFPA blame religious beliefs and contraception’s association with population control for creating a situation in which over 215 million women in the developing world experience what they call an “unmet need” for contraception. They define “unmet need” as “women and men who say they want no more children or want to delay their next birth by more than two years, but are not practicing contraception.”

However, claiming that women who do not want children immediately and who report not using contraception as in “need” of contraception is misleading, as was shown in a landmark study by economist Lant H. Pritchet, currently professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard.

The study finds that access to contraception has little effect on fertility and that women will have the number of children they choose whether they have access to contraception or not. The study also explains that factors such as dislike for the side effects of contraception and religious objections are just as important as the cost and availability of contraception.

Timothy Herrmann is Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute’s (C-FAM)representative to the United Nations. His article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

LGBT Lawyers Sue Pastor for “Crime Against Humanity”

By Wendy Wright

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A law firm known for publicity-seeking tactics is suing an American minister in U.S. Federal Court because he criticized homosexuality in Uganda.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) says pastor and attorney Scott Lively committed “persecution,” a “crime against humanity” as defined in the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court.

CRR filed the case in the U.S. on behalf of a Ugandan advocacy group called Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and are using the Alien Tort Claims Act, an old and very controversial U.S. statute that allows foreigners to sue in U.S. court for violations of international law committed outside the U.S.

SMUG charges that Lively “worked extensively with key anti-gay political and religious leaders in Uganda with the overall purpose and objective of depriving LGBTI persons of their fundamental rights” by defeating anti-discrimination legislation on sexual orientation and gender identity, and introducing a bill heightening penalties against homosexuality.

CRR spokesman Pamela Spees told the New York Times, “This is not just based on his speech. It’s based on his conduct.” The lawsuit claims that Lively “traveled to Uganda twice,” “spoke at a ‘Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda,’” “held an all-day pastors’ conference allowing only invited media or guests,” “addressed students at Nkumbe University on the ‘Dangers of the Culture of Porn,’” “led a service at the Ugandan Christian University,” “met with the Kampala City Council” and other activities the group considers objectionable and legally actionable.

SMUG claims their members have suffered “severe deprivations” of “freedom of expression, association, assembly and the press; . . . to be free from attacks upon one’s honor and reputation,” and fears harassment, arbitrary arrest and physical harm, including death.

The complaint begins with the bombshell claim that the bludgeoning murder of SMUG member David Kato was somehow connected to Lively’s work in Uganda. Not mentioned is that a man Kato bailed out of jail confessed to killing him for making unwanted sexual demands. He’s been sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Ugandan legislators introduced a bill criminalizing the promotion of homosexuality. It included the death penalty for a person with AIDS engaging in homosexual sex with a minor or disabled person, or if the perpetrator is a “serial offender.” The bill has not passed.

Lively was disappointed the legislation “is so harsh.” He advocates for remedies focused on rehabilitation, not punishment.

Lively called the accusations against him “absurd.” “Implying that my speech and writings about homosexuality overpowered the intelligence and independence of the entire government and population of Uganda, bending them to my supposedly nefarious will is a breathtakingly insulting and racist premise.”

CRR describes itself as “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.” CRR was co-founded by William Kunstler, a self-described “radical lawyer” famous for representing sometimes violent political and social activists. The law firm uses the courts to advance the activists’ work. Its strategy is “Success without victory,” that is, choosing cases not to win but to generate media or bolster the activists.

[Blogger note: Such a case might set a precedent for foreign people’s whose constitutional rights has been undermined or destroyed by the conduct of NGOs and groups like CRR who use the foreign courts for nullify legislation of their approval.]

Wendy Wright is interim executive director of the Catholic Familiy and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). Her article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.