What, pray tell, is a reader of conscience? It sounds like someone has been insulted, but it isn't quite clear who, or on what grounds.
need to know about Norway: The Norwegian government has consistently proved itself to be a friend of Israel.
What the Norwegian ambassador to Israel would like Israelis to know about his country, in response to recent articles and op-eds that have appeared in the Jerusalem Post. We leave the Rantburg reader to make his own judgement.
Norway has been a strong supporter of Israel since its foundation. We remain committed to Israel's right to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders, and we have over the years committed financial and political resources, as well as the lives of Norwegian soldiers, to that end.
The Norwegian government, like the Israeli government and the Paleostinian leadership, remains committed to a two-state solution. Just as there is widespread opposition in Norway to the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is widespread support for the Israeli right to live in security. We consistently condemn the targeting of civilians by rockets from Gazoo.
Nevertheless, The Jerusalem Post persists in regularly publishing strongly anti-Norwegian articles. The latest example is the article by Michael Sharnoff, prominently placed in the 1 May edition. Mr. Sharnoff's article follows a familiar pattern. He makes harsh allegations against "Norway," "the Norwegian leaders" and "Oslo," claiming that many in the Norwegian government have recently displayed a pattern of anti-Semitic attitudes "which would make Islamist Orcs and similar vermin very proud," and also claims that the actions of Norwegian leaders "exhibit traits of genteel anti-Semitism."
He even goes so far as to claim that "If Vidkun Quisling was alive today and read the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements that were coming out of Norway, a big smile would appear on his face." Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Norwegian history would know how insulting the reference to Quisling is to Norwegians.
If you want to make a serious allegation, you have to make sure you have your facts straight. This is the problem with Mr. Sharnoff's article. Actions and statements are described as anti-Semitic without real justification, and then attributed to Norway or the Norwegian people in general. In the following I will address some of the claims made in the article.
Claim: Norway is singling out Israel among all other nations for international opprobrium.
Fact: Even a brief glance at the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shows that Norway's commitment to human rights When they're defined by the state or an NGO they don't mean much... , democracy and peace is worldwide, not confined to one country or part of the world.
Claim: Then-Socialist Left Party leader Kristin Halvorsen proposed a boycott of Israeli products in 2006.
Fact: It is true that Kristin Halvorsen publicly supported her own party's campaign. She also subsequently made it clear that the Norwegian government is opposed to a consumer boycott of Israel. The Norwegian government does not believe that boycotts are an effective way to promote political change. But a consumer boycott is a legitimate way to protest policies that you are against, and cannot in itself be claimed to be anti-Semitic.
Claim: Norway has refused to follow the US and EU in classifying Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, as a designated terrorist organization.
Fact: Norway does not have a national list of designated terrorist organizations. This is a general policy which is not particular to Hamas. What we do have is legislation that outlaws terrorist actions, and we have shown, not least through our military commitment in Afghanistan, that we are unwavering in our resolve to combat international terrorism.
Claim: The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre has insisted that Israel dismantle the security barrier.
Fact: Norway has consistently recognized the security needs of Israel and Israel's right to self defense. According to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice published on 9 July 2004, the construction of the security barrier in The Paleostinian Territory was contrary to international law and should be dismantled. It should also be remembered that the problem the court found with the security barrier was that it was built on occupied territory and that other considerations than security were important for the route that was chosen for the barrier.
There are no limitations on building barriers within a country's internationally recognized borders. In a UN General Assembly resolution, 150 countries, including all EU member states, urged Israel to implement the advisory opinion. Singling out Norway is not justified.
Claim: During the Durban II Conference in Geneva, Norway remained in attendance during Iranian president Ahmadinejad's speech.
Fact: It is misleading to mention this without at the same time mentioning why Norway remained in attendance. It is Norwegian policy not to cede the podiums of the UN to jihad boys, but rather to use these podiums to confront them publicly. The Norwegian Foreign Minister was the next speaker at the Durban II Conference, and used the opportunity to sharply criticize the Iranian president.
Claim: The University of Trondheim in Norway tried to impose an academic boycott against Israeli universities in 2009, but the motion ultimately failed.
Fact: It is wrong to claim that the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim tried to impose such a boycott. It is true that a proposal to that effect was made to the board by faculty members and students, but the board unanimously voted against a boycott. The government also made clear that such a boycott, if adopted by a university, would be illegal under Norwegian law.
Claim: In October 2010, Norway's Foreign Ministry announced that it would not permit the German shipbuilder HDW to test its Dolphin-class submarine, built for the Israeli navy, in Norwegian territorial waters.
Fact: It is true that Norway has strict rules for the export of arms, including services, to countries that are at war or where there is a threat of war. This applies to many countries around the world, so there is no singling out of Israel.
Claim: Norwegian retail chain Vita's decision to stop selling cosmetics produced in an illegal settlement in the West Bank is an example of "genteel anti-Semitism."
Fact: Companies are free to make their own ethical choices, including when it comes to products from settlements that have been established in contravention of international law. There are companies around the world, including in Israel, that make the same choices. The claim that Vita's decision is "genteel anti-Semitism" remains unsubstantiated by the author.
Claim: Norway does not propose academic boycotts against universities in China, Britannia, Turkey, Armenia, India or Morocco, nor does it enact sanctions and divestment programs.
Fact: This is correct. But Norway is not enacting sanctions and divestment programs nor proposing academic boycott against universities in Israel either, so it is not very relevant.
In sum, Mr Sharnoff's claims do not hold.
The Norwegian government has consistently proved itself to be a friend of Israel. We have not always agreed with everything Israel has done. Even the best of friends do not agree on everything. But we have demonstrated our willingness to employ our political and financial means to assist Israel. The kind of name-calling that Mr. Sharnoff resorts to is not conducive to a sensible political exchange. And as shown by the above, his allegations are built on a flimsy foundation.
Special report: Irish journalist slams silence of politicians in face of 'group anti-Semitism' mindset; says that in Ireland either one obeys anti-Israel orders of left-wing mind-thugs, or one is lynched
The most serious event of the past week wasn't related to Prime Time's libel of Father Kevin Reynolds, and it wasn't what Cardinal Sean Brady did or didn't do nearly 40 years ago. Far more serious than either for the health of this Republic -- though connected to both by a sanctimonious tissue of lethal intolerance -- was the intimidation of the band Dervish into cancelling a tour of Israel.
Dervish's website was hit by venomous abuse from anti-Israeli activists, on the instructions of the Irish Paleostinian Solidarity Group. Every bit as sinister as this has been the silence from politicians and "civil liberties groups": the exception, of course, being Alan Shatter, who is Jewish. It was as if the intellectual thugs of the IPSG were trying to vindicate my recent suggestion that the largest threat to personal freedom these days comes not from government, but from single-interest pressure groups.
Tactics and techniques that would be called fascist by liberals if used against them were at the heart of the campaign against Dervish. For in the left-liberal culture, certain subjects are beyond the usual courtesies of a tolerant civilization, and instead may be subjected to outright bigotry and bullying. The legitimate targets for this salon-terrorism are the Catholic Church, American Republicans, and of course Israel.
So Prime Time's libeling of Father Kevin Reynolds was not just a bizarre departure from some cultural norm, but actually was its very quintessence. In other words, when a black African woman and an Irish Catholic priest contradict one another, it is axiomatic that the white man must be lying. Indeed, the prevailing dogma rules that the opposite is quite simply impossible. With that contaminated mind-set at the helm, no wonder RTE sailed right into the iceberg upon a sunlit noon.
And one can go absolutely nowhere with this culture. It permits no conversation, no exchange of ideas and no freedom of speech. One complies, or one is lynched: take your pick. It is the liberal version of Sharia law: one obeys the instructions of the secular mullahs, and one hopes to have a peaceful life. But if you think peace results from the triumph of intolerance, just wait for the 4 am knock on your door -- because sooner or later, the mind-thugs will be coming for you too.
And consider the deeper historical continuity within which the Boycott Israel campaign stands. This is the state whose Taoiseach went to offer his condolences on the tragic death of Herr Hitler just weeks after allied troops had liberated Buchenwald, Belsen and Dachau. This was the state that became a safe haven for Nazi war-criminals in the 1950s. This was the state where the Mayor of Limerick in 1970 praised the anti-Jewish boycott in the city in 1903, and far being expelled from the Labour Party, was re-elected TD for the party.
This was the last state in the European Union ...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... to exchange full diplomatic relations with Israel. This is the state which recently tolerated the day-long enactment of mock-executions of "Paleostinians" by "Israelis" on its main shopping thoroughfare. No, there might not be any personal anti-Semitism in this Republic: but group anti-Semitism seems to have a secure place in the Irish psyche. And the handful of stupid Jews who are backing the Boycott Israel campaign clearly have absolutely no idea of the underlying (and no doubt subconscious) emotions beneath this Israelophobia.
For only such a truly deranged pathogen could single out Israel for a boycott, while in every other state in the region, there are mass violations of civil rights by government-authorized murder-gangs. In Egypt, Islamic mobs have killed hundreds of Christians, devastating Coptic communities whose roots predate the arrival of Islam. Before the catastrophic Anglo-French destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the largest single ethno-religious group in Storied Baghdad ...located along the Tigris River, founded in the 8th century, home of the Abbasid Caliphate... were the Jews: and next came the Christians, who between them outnumbered the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds together.
Today, all non-Moslem ethnic groups are facing utter extinction in Iraq. The Jews are gone, and the few remaining Christians are clinging on by their eyelids. Across the Arab world, fundamentalism is triumphant, as "honor-killings" -- that truly moronic oxymoron - achieve a lawful status in Egypt and Jordan, as they soon will -- make no mistake - in Libya and Syria. Women caught in "adultery" -- even when raped - and homosexuals may legitimately be killed by self-appointed executioners.
The one country in the Middle East that does not recognize the deranged and barbaric precepts of Sharia law is Israel. Yet this is the one and only state in the region that the Irish Left not merely wishes to stigmatize, but they want to terrorize the rest of us into stigmatizing also. And to judge from the abject silence of our politicians, they seem to be succeeding admirably.
This story was originally published by the Irish Independent
[Dawn] AN army chief disowning the actions of his subordinate/s in the line of duty is an extraordinary phenomenon. In an application to the Supreme Court, which had asked him to clarify his role in what came to be known as Mehrangate, Gen (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg ...occasionally incoherent retired four-star general who was the Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army, succeeding the creepy General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, after the latter was rubbed out died in an air crash in 1988. The general was involved up to his hairy ears in the Mehran bank scandal, shuffling millions in public money to buy or lease politicians, and is believed one of the prime movers in the sale of Pak nuclear technology to Iran. He ranks second only to Hamid Gul in the volume and flavor of his anti-Western vitriol.. said he had "knowledge" of the affair but was not involved in the disbursement of money to certain politicians to manipulate the 1990 elections. More astonishingly, the former army chief said he had no control over the ISI. He may be technically correct as officially the latter is under the prime minister, but the reality in Pakistain, as he knows, is different. An army's various formations are answerable to its chief. Were different units to operate on their own, the army would turn into a political party rather than be a fighting force. No army can operate in war and peace without the intelligence agencies serving as its eyes and ears. Thus for Mr Beg to attempt to dissociate himself from the ISI defies common sense and brings ridicule to the office of the chief of staff of one of the world's largest standing armies.
Years before Assad Durrani, a retired ISI chief, submitted his affidavit to the SC, giving details of the money gifted to some politicians with a view to creating a pro-army, pro-Ghulam Ishaq Khan alliance, Mr Beg had gone public with his disclosure about the money illegally obtained from the now defunct Mehran Bank and given to some of Pakistain's most corrupt politicians to help create the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad to undermine Benazir Bhutto ... 11th Prime Minister of Pakistain in two non-consecutive terms from 1988 until 1990 and 1993 until 1996. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistain People's Party, who was murdered at the instigation of General Ayub Khan. She was murdered in her turn by person or persons unknown while campaigning in late 2007. Suspects include, to note just a few, Baitullah Mehsud, General Pervez Musharraf, the ISI, al-Qaeda in Pakistain, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who shows remarkably little curiosity about who done her in... 's electoral chances. Hamid Gul The nutty former head of Pakistain's ISI, now Godfather to Mullah Omar's Talibs and good buddy and consultant to al-Qaeda's high command... , another retired ISI chief, also admitted that the establishment led by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan wanted to create "a balance of power" in politics by propping up an anti-PPP alliance. We now leave it to the court to decipher Mr Beg's rigmarole when he says he "only instructed" Mr Durrani to "maintain" accounts. The court must now also rule on the relationship between the army and ISI chiefs. Can an army chief be exonerated from the doings of its intelligence arm -- in military affairs or the dirty world of politics?
Posted by: Fred ||
05/12/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Around 7:45 in the morning on 2nd May 2011, two consecutive calls on my cellphone pulled me out of bed. 'Osama has been found and killed in Abbottabad ... A pleasant city located only 30 convenient miles from Islamabad. The city is noted for its nice weather and good schools. It is the site of Pakistain's military academy, which was within comfortable walking distance of the residence of the late Osama bin Laden.... ,' said the caller, my younger brother. This electrifying revelation worked more than what the early morning coffee does to you. A strong sense of disbelief, shock and shame overtook me.
A year later, early morning on May 3, I found an absorbing account of a visit to Osama's compound in Abbottabad in my email. An old friend Peter Bergen, author and terrorism expert, had managed to get access in February this year, and thus came back with a riveting account of the compound.
May 2 was the most shameful day for Paks; it exposed the many lies they had been told
The news of his elimination reminded me of an observation Amrullah Saleh, the former chief of Afghan intelligence - National Directorate of Services (NDS) - had made at a conference organized by the Jamestown Foundation in Washington on 13 December 2010, had
'Unless all these boys [OBL, Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... , Hekmetyar] are pulled out of the basements of their hideouts in Pakistain, there will be no peace in Afghanistan, nor will the violence come down,' Saleh had thundered in a gathering of almost 350 people at the National Press Club, where I was also to read a paper on the troubles in the border regions.
Saleh repeated those words immediately after the Operation Neptune Spear - mounted to take out Bin Laden - and exuded a certain sense of vindication in several interviews he gave in days after Osama's elimination. And rightly so.
Although skeptical Paks and officials, particularly those from the security apparatus, dismissed certain details of the Washington narrative on the raid, yet his wives admitted before the Abbottabad Commission, that Osama was indeed present in the compound when the US SEALs hit. They had been living there since late 2005. The commission even reconstructed a video that the Americans claimed had been recovered from the Bin Laden house. The film, released a few days after the incident, depicts Bin Laden sitting in a small cabin-sized shabby room in front of a small, possibly 21-inch old-fashioned TV and playing with the video remote control. The widows' deposition before the Commission essentially gave a lie to all the skeptics who - still mired in a state of denial - refused to believe that OBL was present at the time of the raid.
May 2 indeed was the most shameful day for Paks; it exposed the many lies they had been fed and living with.And it was in this context that the American ambassador to Pakistain, Cameron Munter, took on the skeptics by posing counter-questions to news hounds at a press stakeout in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It may be the largest city in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... on 9 May 2011: 'We need to know what was he doing all these years in Pakistain', Munter asked, echoing the suspicions running deep in Washington since the killing of Bin Laden. Most outsiders, including US politicians in the Congress, began questioning the possible motives of the ISI and other Pak security institutions: Had they been protecting Bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist since he disappeared in December 2001 from the Tora Bora cave complex in Afghanistan?
The wives practically demolished all the conspiracy theories and questions surrounding the debate over Osama's life at the compound. He was there indeed and went cold within seconds after a SEAL pierced his head and chest with two bullets through the silencer-armed rifle. He was almost instantly dead because of the fatal gunshot in the head.
What an unbelievable end to the man who challenged the sole superpower and was solely responsible for sucking the USA into the history's longest conflict, being fought in the largely mountainous and socially tribal Afghanistan that refuses to transition into a democratic and pluralistic society. Much of it we owe to the legacy that Osama has left behind in the region. Some of the supporters of Osama's ideology continue to be a source of external pressure, embarrassment and diplomatic isolation of Pakistain.
Ironically, rejection and denial followed foreign secretary Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as The Liberatress of Libya and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another George C. Marshall ... 's May 7 remarks in New Delhi about Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri ... Formerly second in command of al-Qaeda, now the head cheese, occasionally described as the real brains of the outfit. Formerly the Mister Big of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Bumped off Abdullah Azzam with a car boom in the course of one of their little disputes. Is thought to have composed bin Laden's fatwa entitled World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders. Currently residing in the North Wazoo area. That is not a horn growing from the middle of his forehead, but a prayer bump, attesting to how devout he is... 's perceived presence in Pakistain. Hina Rabbani Khar, the foreign minister, demanded "actionable proof" if the US had it. But viewed against the abysmally low trust in Pakistain's security establishment, why will the American establishment risk failure by sharing information about the new most wanted terrorist? No amount of denial will fend off external pressures. Only demonstrable actions can help, at least restraining the anti-US and anti-India rhetoric. There is no way around this at all, unless those in power are bent upon piling more misery and isolation on the people of Pakistain.
Why are we upset over Zawahiri's alleged presence somewhere in Pakistain? After all, beside the late Osama bin Laden ... who was laid out deader than a mackerel, right next to the mackerel... , Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Aimal Kansi, Adil Al Jazeeri, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Abu Faraj al Libi, Ilyas Kashmire, Abu Yazid, Tahir Yuldashev inter alia were all discovered either in the tribal areas or in big cities such as Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Bloody Karachi, and Abbottabad.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
05/12/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
#1
Well, if the democrats of their day LAST TIME did their duty, you would have known all about him and everywhere he was. Some people just do not have the memory. Ollie North does.
In May 1967, in brazen violation of previous truce agreements, Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai, marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (Israel's southern outlet to the world's oceans), abruptly signed a military pact with Jordan and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel.
May '67 was Israel's most fearful, desperate month. The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. A plan to test the blockade with a Western flotilla failed for lack of participants. Time was running out. Forced into mass mobilization in order to protect against invasion -- and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists -- life ground to a halt. The country was dying.
On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that, four days earlier, the nationalist opposition (Menachem Begin's Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition.
Everyone understood why. You do not undertake a supremely risky preemptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus.
Forty-five years later, in the middle of the night of May 7-8, 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked his country by bringing the main opposition party, Kadima, into a national unity government. Shocking because just hours earlier, the Knesset was expediting a bill to call early elections in September.
Why did the high-flying Netanyahu call off elections he was sure to win?
Because for Israelis today, it is May '67. The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence -- nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel's annihilation -- since May '67. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found -- as in '67 -- Israelis know that they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.
Such a fateful decision demands a national consensus. By creating the largest coalition in nearly three decades, Netanyahu is establishing the political premise for a preemptive strike, should it come to that. The new government commands an astonishing 94 Knesset seats out of 120, described by one Israeli columnist as a "hundred tons of solid concrete."
So much for the recent media hype about some great domestic resistance to Netanyahu's hard line on Iran. Two notable retired intelligence figures were widely covered here for coming out against him. Little noted was that one had been passed over by Netanyahu to be the head of Mossad, while the other had been fired by Netanyahu as Mossad chief (hence the job opening).
Ah hah! The missing piece that explains all.
For centrist Kadima (it pulled Israel out of Gazoo) to join a Likud-led coalition whose defense minister is a former Labor prime minister (who once offered half of Jerusalem to Yasser Arafat) is the very definition of national unity -- and refutes the popular "Israel is divided" meme. "Everyone is saying the same thing," explained one Knesset member, "though there may be a difference of tone."
#1
Means nothing what they think. Any Second - any second that green light. So, Iran, it shall be done lest you pull up your sleeves for real and the trust thing is just plain gone.
What you have Tehran, is bad options or rubble. But hey, you have choices. Israelis do not.
A letter to the Editor of the WaPo, under the heading "Fooled Once by President Obama." Some in his base are really disappointed!
In his May 8 op-ed column, Lessons from LBJ, Richard Cohen misinterpreted the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for President Obama among those who should be his most ardent supporters.
I was among those in 2008 who began giving time and money to Mr. Obama when the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Rodham Clinton had the nomination locked up. We fought hard for Mr. Obama and triumphed. His reward to us was what we call Bushs third term.
In 2012, Mr. Obama cannot frighten us with the Romney bogeyman because we already know from experience that Mr. Obama will be little better. That's it. I'm not sure of the point. He's mad? Not going to vote? He'll vote for Mitt because it doesn't matter? Hopes Hilly will run, because she is so far left? I don't get it!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/12/2012 15:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another Rube Self-Identifies.™
With all this whine going around, I'll have to order some more cheese.
Posted by: Barbara ||
05/12/2012 20:59 Comments ||
Top||
A new perspective on the gay marriage debate and a new twist on separation of church and state.
The May 10 editorial "Mr. Obama's welcome evolution" was wrong. As a Unitarian Universalist, I support gay marriage, and my denomination has married same-sex couples for many years. But that is where marriage belongs: in church, or wherever a couple choose to sanctify their relationship.
The state has no business in marriage decisions. It should offer to all couples, gay or straight, a license that serves as a legal contract defining their rights and responsibilities in matters such as inheritance, medical decisions and child-rearing.
Government sanctioning of marriage is a violation of separation of church and state, which is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. I support civil unions for all. Let's get the word marriage out of the statute books. The definition of the word marriage need not change with the changing opinions or morals of some of the people in order for all to be equal.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/12/2012 10:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This has always been my question about marriage. As a conservative/libertarian why does gov't have anything to do with weddings? Of course the answer is obvious. Gov't involvement revolves around 2 related issues: 1. Rights of women and 2. Money.
The more gov't has used marriage as a tool in the alotment of preferential treatment the more people want to get married (gay or straight) to reap the bennies.
I questioned a close relative about this a few years ago when she was getting "married" to another woman. Living near P'town, not exactly a hostile environment, there were lots of supporters but when I asked exactly what she expected to gain that she didn't already have?
Her honest and simple answer was "Money" in the forms of government benefits. Just one more special interest group doing the rent-seeking dance.
#2
This is about a powerful secular entity using that power to impose its political views and moral code view on a religious institution. Nothing more.
#3
Civil unions are secular but legal ceremonies but marriages religious ceremonies, where blessing by God is sanctioned; if gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right then churches could be accused of discrimination for upholding their doctrinal beliefs and lose tax-exempt status. This is more than just a political ploy to raise funds and not homophobic but another attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs. ALL Americans are protected constitutionally already from discrimination.
#4
Oddly enough, I view it that way too. As a Catholic, Marriage is a *Sacrament*. The state cannot grant such a thing. All the state can do is stay out of our way due to the good old 1st amendment.
#6
I understand that marriage is a two step process in the Catholic Church. First the couple initiate it by taking their vows before a priest. However the second process is that it must be consummated. If not couples are legally able to divorce.
Question; how does a gay couple "consummate" their marriage, when studies show the majority do not engage in anal sex?
Take Immigration for example - the K1 'fiancee' visa. (This is from about 10 years ago - and I am not a lawyer and did not stay in a...)
The couple *is* allowed to participate in a religious ceremony of 'marriage' before the actual immigration (or approval). But they cannot 'register' or otherwise legally marry. (Actually there is nothing to stop them from doing so - however they will then have to convert (or re-apply) for a Spousal Visa which is different.)
This clearly defines a separation of the 'religious' marriage and the secular 'legal civil union'.
I just have a penchant against the state telling private organizations what to do against their will. If we have to go over institutional integrity with this ignorant group of wannabe europeons, I'm gonna lose my damn mind.
Also, let's be perfectly clear about Marriage, it is in place to ensure procreation and solid Family relationships. Soooo, if the Church you walked in refuses to marry you because they are un-comfortable, go to one that will or go to city hall and see what they say. Maybe they will.
But don't bring out your little dictator to order my Parrish to marry you. Get bent.
#10
So I guess now I can call myself doctor, chef, and imam. Those are all certifications of a level of conditions and achievement, how is this different?
This quip is absolutely right. Perhaps deh creative gheys can come up with a special unique word to describe their coupling.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
AN army chief disowning the actions of his subordinate/s in the line of duty is an extraordinary phenomenon. In an application to the Supreme Court, which had asked him to clarify his role in what came to be known as Mehrangate, Gen (retd) 
Hamid Gul
Hillary Clinton
Zawahiri
