violence

Say what you will about Bill Donohue, but the man never misses an opportunity to play the victim, even when the issue has nothing at all do with him or his mission and doing so is in disgracefully poor taste.

Take, for instance, this press release the Catholic League just put out:

According to The Australian, “dozens of bodies lined the streets” of three Christian villages in northern Nigeria. “Other victims of the weekend’s Muslim fury jammed a local morgue, the limbs of slaughtered children tangled in a grotesque mess.” Children were scalped, “most had severed hands and feet,” and “officials estimate that 500 people were massacred in night-time raids by rampaging Muslim gangs.” According to one eyewitness media account, “They then set homes on fire and attacked men, women and children. Many were decapitated.”

Now here is how CNN is reporting the story. “Gangs of machete-wielding Muslims have been blamed for the weekend slaughter of hundreds of Christian villagers in Nigeria, but analysts say it would be wrong to assume the conflict was rooted in religion.” Of course: When Muslims massacre Christians, religion never has anything to do with it.

“Some analysts,” the story continues, “believe the weekend slaughter was a revenge attack for the killing of around 150 members of the Hausa Muslim community by Christian mobs in Kuru Karama south of Jos, in January 2010.” Well, let’s see. Back in January, a U.N. media outlet reported that Muslim and Christian leaders in Kuru Karama, a predominantly Muslim village, “met to make a pact with the police to defend any attacks by outsiders.” But guess what happened? “Several hours later youths armed with machetes attacked the village.” And we know who likes machetes.

Donohue says "it’s time to stop viewing Muslim-Christian violence through the lens of moral equivalency" which apparently means that Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria is far, far worse than Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria.

If you read this Human Rights Watch report on the recent massacre, it says that hundreds of Christians were murdered by "Muslim men speaking Hausa and Fulani" and that "the attacks appeared to be in retaliation for previous attacks against Muslim communities in the area ... on January 19, more than 150 Muslim residents were killed in an attack on the nearby town of Kuru Karama."

This Human Rights Watch report on the January massacre states that more than one hundred Muslims were killed by Christians in an attack that was set off by either "an argument over the rebuilding of a Muslim home destroyed in the November 2008 violence in a predominately Christian neighborhood" or an "attack by Muslim youth on Christian worshippers in the Nassarawa Gwom district of Jos."

So the current massacre of Christians by Muslims is believed to be retribution for an earlier massacre of Muslims by Christians, all of which is wrapped up in a cycle of violence in which "more than 13,500 people have died in religious or ethnic clashes since the end of military rule in 1999."

But to Bill Donohue, it is little more than an opportunity to shamelessly exploit this tragic violence in order to claim that Muslims are bloodthirsty killers of Christians and that the media is somehow complicit in covering up this basic fact.

Several weeks ago, two men who were preaching Boynton Beach, Florida were murdered and ever since Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has been convinced that this was an anti-Christian hate crime, claiming without any justification or evidence whatsoever that the crime is proof that a "violent anti-Christian spirit is growing in America" and that the two men were killed "for preaching the gospel."

Cass eventually got Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition involved and the two groups held a press conference/vigil for the victims last week at which they demanded Attorney General Eric Holder "launch a federal investigation to see if these murders broke federal laws or federal civil rights statutes."

And now Mahoney and Cass have sent a letter to Holder asking for a Department of Justice investigation:

"The gruesome murder of Tire Sifra and Steven Ocean while sharing the Word of God in their neighborhood has raised some very serious civil rights issues," said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "If they were targeted for their exercising their religion then their murder is not simply routine gang violence but raises important matters of civil rights. We have sent a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder asking for an investigation."

"We are pleading with the city of Boynton Beach, do not sweep the faith issue under the carpet," Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. "We want the police to ask questions about religious issues involved here. We just don't want them to say this is just another episode of gang violence."

Of course, there is no evidence that this crime had anything at all to do with religion:

Faith not a factor, police say ... The shooting suspect, Jeriah Woody, 18, turned himself in last week. And a local history of gang violence and revenge killings makes for an attack scenario that requires much less imagination.

One of the dead preachers, Ocean, was arrested outside the Boynton Beach Mall four years ago with a loaded automatic pistol. He was with three other reputed gang members, one of whom was shot dead in the mall a month later on Christmas Eve.

"We have spoken with numerous witnesses, as well as the suspect," Boynton Beach Police Chief Matt Immler said Friday in a statement, "and at this point we have no reason to believe that the victims' religious activities or beliefs factored into the commission of this crime."

So basically, Cass and Mahoney have decided for themselves that this was some sort of anti-Christian hate crime. And based entirely upon their own say so, they are now calling for a Department of Justice investigation in hopes of finding some actual evidence that might justify their groundless claims.

And when the DOJ refuses to carry out the investigation requested, you can rest assured that Cass and Mahoney will declare that decision to be further proof of the Obama administration's antipathy toward Christians.

Earlier this week, the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform issued a press release condemning Randall Terry's reaction to the conviction of Scott Roeder for murdering Dr. George Tiller and for Terry's support for the use of violence against abortion providers.

Terry immediately responded with a press release of his own making his standard claims that he does not support violence, but sees it as inevitable so long as abortion remains legal. 

Gregg Cunningham of the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform then responded with another press release in which he dared Terry to "sue us" if he thinks he's been maligned and proceeds to smack down Terry's attention-seeking histrionics while calling out his self-serving claims about opposing the use of violence. 

I'm posting a large chunk of the CBR release because it's a thing of beauty:

You chide me for not "picking up the phone" to "check the facts" before condemning your attempt to minimize the murder of George Tiller but what facts would have rebutted published newspaper photos of you displaying signs which argued that Scott Roeder's motives in killing George Tiller made his crime less than murder?

When you tell The New York Times (January 28, 2010, "Doctor's Killer Puts Abortion on the Stand") that you are not "condemning Mr. Roeder's actions," you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you tell The Wichita Eagle (January 30, 2010, "Reactions to the Scott Roeder verdict from both sides of abortion debate") that "If we condemn him [Roeder] too severely it undermines the premise of everything we stand for," you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you issue a press release (January 25, 2010) in which you say it is "a farce" to "pretend that this trial has nothing to do with child-killing by abortion," you are suggesting that Mr. Roeder's murder of George Tiller was justified by George Tiller's abortion practice and you are expressing support for violence against abortionists. (www.christiannewswire.com/news/7566412845.html).

When you issue a press release (January 27, 2010) in which you quote scripture which says in reference to George Tiller's murder, "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning" and that "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous" and that "the Lord our God will bring other destructions upon them" and add "their innocent blood cries to God ... for vengeance," you are expressing support for violence against abortionists. (www.christiannewswire.com/news/8209412876.html).

When you hold a press conference (www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGwuOwdZ7U) during which you say testimony by former Attorney General Phil Kline could have "validated" Scott Roeder's motivation and "brought a level of credibility to Scott's frame of mind," you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you argue at a press conference (www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGwuOwdZ7U) that Scott Roeder, who bought a handgun, practiced with it, studied George Tiller's daily habits and visited his church three times before finding him there and blowing his brains out, should have been charged with "voluntary manslaughter," you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you argue that Scott Roeder's motivation for killing George Tiller entitles him to a slap-on-the-wrist sentence of less than five years in prison (the minimum sentence for voluntary manslaughter under Kansas law) you are trivializing premeditated murder and expressing support for violence against abortionists.

Against this background, your press conference claim that "I don't even agree with what Scott Roeder did" is absurd. It is the sort of self-serving fig leaf which thoughtful listeners will rightly reject. You are either being intentionally deceptive or wildly negligent.

You have every right to bring discredit upon yourself and the organization you represent. But when your self-promotional excesses discredit the entire pro-life movement with reckless theatrics, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to signal indifference, or worse, agreement, by our collective silence.

When you attempt to rationalize, justify, or minimize violence against abortionists, you don't speak for those of us who condemn anarchy without equivocation. Be assured that when you jeopardize the fragile progress we have all worked so hard to achieve, we will anathematize and isolate you.

I have to admit that I am having some trouble understanding just what Randall Terry's position is regarding acts of violence against reproductive health providers.  When Dr. George Tiller was killed last year, Terry immediately weighed in, calling Tiller a "mass-murderer" who "reaped what he sowed" while simultaneously claiming that he did not advocate or support such acts of violence.

But now that the trial of Scott Roeder is underway, Terry seems to have concluded that that actions taken were entirely justified:

After three days of a relatively quiet trial, Randall Terry and three of his supporters showed up with signs in front of the courthouse this morning, as prosecutors prepared to wrap up their case for murder against Scott Roeder.

Signs reading “Tiller killed 60,000 children, Roeder’s reason, The Babies” and “Give Roeder a fair trial” greeted people arriving to the Sedgwick County Courthouse this morning.

Apparently, Terry and company believe that it was Tiller who "drove Scott Roeder to such extremity" and that his actions were not only justified, but inevitable: 

"Precious unborn babies -- like the 60,000 slain by Mr. Tiller -- have their tortured bodies thrown into dumpsters where rats and dogs devour their bodies and blood; others are strewn in landfills to decay while vermin and maggots claim their earthly remains; others are flushed into sewers where their innocent blood flows to... the devil knows where.

"Their innocent blood cries to God -- as did the blood of slaves -- for vengeance. Will God ignore this deafening cry? Will we pretend their blood has no place in this trial? This trial is the place where the rule of law and the "law of blood" meet.

"This jury has the right and duty to hear what drove Scott Roeder to such extremity. For the rule of law to prevail in court, Mr. Roeder must be able to tell the jury why he killed George Tiller. Otherwise, this trial is a farce, and both the rule of law and the law of blood are thrown aside. And as our nation's history proves, such contempt for law and blood has horrific consequences."

Terry likes to claim that he will neither "condone or condemn Scott Roeder's actions" ... but it's becoming quite clear that what he will do is defend and justify them. 

Abby Johnson has become quite the right-wing celebrity in recent months, ever since she left her position at Planned Parenthood and became an anti-choice activist. Since then, she's become a highly sought-after speaker, appeared on Mike Huckabee's television program and CBN, and will even be joining the likes of Lou Engle, Tony Perkins, Richard Land, Harry Jackson and others when the protest a Planned Parenthood facility in Houston later this month.

Well, a new article by Nate Blakeslee in Texas Monthly raises some doubts about Johnson's supposed "conversion":

Johnson’s departure from Planned Parenthood turned out to be a more complex story than it first appeared. At a court hearing for an injunction sought by Planned Parenthood to prevent Johnson from divulging confidential information to her new allies, two of Johnson’s former co-workers testified that she told them in the days before she resigned that she was afraid she was about to be fired. At one time, Johnson, who was named the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate’s employee of the year in 2008, seemed to have a promising future with the organization. By mid-2009, however, her relationship with her employer had begun to deteriorate. Salon reported that on October 2, Johnson was summoned to Houston to meet with her supervisors to discuss problems with her job performance. She was placed on what Planned Parenthood calls a “performance improvement plan.” It was just three days later, on Monday, that Johnson made her tearful appearance at the Coalition for Life. The following day she faxed Planned Parenthood a resignation letter, which mentioned nothing about a crisis of conscience.

...

Other questions about Johnson’s credibility arose during our interview. She told me, for example, that there had never been any threats of violence against the Bryan clinic; however, Johnson herself received a series of threatening letters in 2007. “God will punish you for killing the innocent or we will,” read one. “You are not taking us seriously. You were at the clinic alone. Not very smart,” read another. In fact, the threats were taken so seriously that security cameras were installed at Johnson’s house, as she later acknowledged. Johnson also claimed that while most services at Planned Parenthood were provided by a nonprofit corporation, abortions were done by a for-profit corporation. Both she and Carney seemed to sincerely believe this was true, though all services at Planned Parenthood are, in fact, provided by a pair of separate nonprofit corporations.

As confounding as these inconsistencies are, there may be a much larger problem with Johnson’s story. Johnson has told the story of her journey from pro-choice activist to pro-life celebrity many times in many venues, and the crux of the tale is always the same: her moving description of what she saw on the ultrasound that September day in the Bryan clinic’s operating room ... Johnson’s account is so plausible and rich in detail that even Planned Parenthood seems not to have investigated whether this event ever took place. At my request, the staff at the Bryan clinic examined patient records from September 26, the day Johnson claims to have had her conversion experience, and spoke with the physician who performed abortions on that date. According to Planned Parenthood, there is no record of an ultrasound-guided abortion performed on September 26. The physician on duty told the organization that he did not use an ultrasound that day, nor did Johnson assist on any abortion procedure. “Planned Parenthood can assure you that no abortion patients underwent an ultrasound-guided abortion on September 26,” said a spokesperson. It’s difficult to imagine that Johnson simply got the date wrong; September 12 was the only other day that month that the clinic performed surgical abortions.

Could clinic staff and the physician be mistaken? The Texas Department of State Health Services requires abortion providers to fill out a form documenting basic information about each procedure performed at a clinic. This document is known as the Induced Abortion Report Form. The Bryan clinic reported performing fifteen surgical abortions on September 26. Johnson has consistently said that the patient in question was thirteen weeks pregnant, which is plausible, since thirteen weeks is right at the cusp of when physicians will consider using an ultrasound to assist with the procedure. Yet none of the patients listed on the report for that day were thirteen weeks pregnant; in fact, none were beyond ten weeks.

For her part, Johnson and her newfound allies are standing behind her story.

The Monthly article is excellent and I highly recommend reading the entire piece.

Writing in The Weekly Standard, Gary Bauer complains that the lack of a "backlash" against Muslims in America is leading to more terrorist attacks:

It has been more than a month since U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly murdered 14 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood military base in Texas. And while we were led to believe that the rampage by Hasan, who is Muslim, would provoke a strong and violent reaction against Arab and Muslim Americans, a backlash has been conspicuous only by its absence.

In fact, in the immediate aftermath of each of the dozen attacks by Muslim Americans since 9-11, the conversation has been dominated by predictions of inevitable violence toward Muslims by bigoted Americans unable to control their rage. And each time a backlash has been virtually nonexistent. Our journalistic and political elites have become terrorism's unwitting domestic enablers, perceiving religion-based violence where there is none, while ignoring it where it is widespread and intensifying.

...

A Rasmussen poll immediately after the Fort Hood massacre found that a majority of Americans were at least somewhat concerned that the shooting would prompt a backlash against Muslims in the military. They needn't have been concerned. Since 9-11, every Muslim terrorist attack on American soil has been followed not by a violent backlash, but by outreach and conciliation toward Muslim Americans. And then by more attacks--by radical Islamists. Instead of fretting about a nonexistent backlash against Muslims, perhaps we should be examining more closely what is happening on radical Islamic websites and in some U.S. prisons, mosques, and Islamic schools that is causing increasing numbers of young American Muslims to embrace jihad against their neighbors.

Apparently, Bauer thinks that America needs a backlash against Muslims if we want to stop terrorism, since the lack of any such backlash is what is leading to more attacks.

The Family Research Council prides itself on its strong committment to protecting religious liberty and freedom of religious expression:

Family Research Council believes that religious observance and faith in God have an overwhelmingly positive impact on society. Just as marriage has a foundational effect on the flourishing of family life, religious observance has a similar effect on community and national life. The fostering of religious observance within a framework of religious freedom is a hallmark of our culture as shaped by our Founding Fathers. In the United States, the Judeo-Christian worldview has provided a sound basis for the flourishing of our national culture and our political system.

But the primacy of the "Judeo-Christian worldview" is central to FRC's mission, noting that while "we believe in religious liberty for people of all faiths and of no faith ... we deny that minority religions are entitled to greater protection than members of the country's majority Christian faith," which explains why the organization apparently sees no problem with the Swiss ban on the construction of new minarets on mosques

Of course, any true religious or ethnic bigotry is morally wrong. All persons are made in the image and likeness of God and should be free to worship as they wish. But no group has the right to enter a host culture and demand conformity to its traditions. That’s aggressive, insulting and insensitive.

Why is it unacceptable for Europeans not to want their countries Islamicized? Muslims are now in Europe in significant numbers, but they are almost entirely unharrassed. Yet not a single Christian church exists in Saudi Arabia. Christians in Islamic countries often are attacked, discriminated against (Christians and Jews are often paid only half of their Muslim counterparts, per the command of the Quran) and prevented from free and open worship. Go to Voice of the Martyrs and see for yourself.

Count the crosses in the Islamic world. Read about the anti-Semitic rhetoric of many Islamic groups in Europe. Consider the repression of, and frequent violence against, Christians in Muslim-dominant nations. Add up the “fatwas” against Muslims who dare convert to faith in Jesus.

Then ask me to worry about the Swiss vote on minarets. Just don’t hold your breath.

For weeks, the most anti-gay fringe of the Religious Right has been building up Monday's "rally” in front of the U.S. Department of Justice as an in-your-face challenge to the hate crimes law and the Obama administration.  Organizers like Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission promised some fire and brimstone in order to see whether the DOJ would have the cojones to arrest them: 

We'll have some video posted soon.

• Congratulations to Pam, Joe, Andy, and Bil for being honored at the NYC Anti-Violence Project's Courage Awards.
• Rupert Murdoch says Glenn Beck was right when he said President Obama is racist.
• Stay classy, Laura Ingraham.
• The Tea Party now has its own PAC.
• Bruce Bartlett explains why reading legislation is a waste of time.
• David Weigel: Anti-Tax Movement Ponders Two Big Defeats.
• Jodi Jacobson: The "Real Life" Effects of Stupak-Pitts: An Analysis by Legal Experts at Planned Parenthood.
• Finally, Michael Steele says that he scares white Republicans.