Showing posts with label Religious Intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Intolerance. Show all posts

Thursday, March 1, 2012

How Marcel Guanizo and @SenBobCasey embarrassed me to be a Catholic...this week (VIDEO)

Okay, so 1) The Bishops decide to dictate to Non-Catholics whether or not they get access to Birth Control, under the guise of "protecting Religious Freedom".  That was sooo last week...

Oh, wait...maybe it's not.

2) Then, Rev. Marcel Guanizo decided to deny Barbara Johnson (no relation) communion at her Mother's Funeral Mass, because Ms. Johnson is a Lesbian.

Rev. Guanizo also got up and left as she gave her Eulogy...again, at her Mother's Funeral Mass. He also refused to attend or say prayer for the funeral for Ms. Johnson's Mother...who, it needs to be repeated, was not Gay.

Fortunately, the Funeral Home Director really stepped up, found a retired Priest to perform the last of the rites that needed to be performed,

Lawrence O'Donnell had her on last night:



And to repeat what Lawrence read in the video the D.C. archdiocese also stepped up and came correct:

Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”

I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.

Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.

Amen, Sister.

But let's be clear, that was full-on, full-throated apology from Rev. Knestout.  No "I'm sorry if you were offended".  No, this was a "we did wrong, and we will make amends."

Rev. Barry Knestout and the unnamed Funeral Director who came through for Ms. Johnson? You both made me proud to be a Catholic, but that's been tough sledding in 2012.

And now 3) Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania decided to vote for the Blunt Amendment, which thankfully failed.

But I want to remind the Senator that then-Senator Barack Obama took a LOT of grief from Pro-Choice  Activists in the Party for giving him a prime speaking slot at the 2008 Convention in Denver.

And this is how he sees fit to repay the President.

More to the point, this is how he sees fit to "protect" religious freedom, which I'm sure is his argument.  He wants to protect his religious freedom, by screwing you out of yours.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, don't even bother calling me.  Ben Nelson, Bob Manchin and now Ben Casey are today's reasons I don't give a dime to that organization. I will give money to Democratic Senators directly.  I will give money to Senators who represent my interests, and not try to impose their Religious views on Non-Catholics.

Okay, Mother Church. It's only Thursday.  What else have you got for me??

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Umm, is there a way @MSNBC can force Chris Matthews to watch his own Network and learn somethin'? (VIDEO)

First Chris Matthews had on E.J. Dionne and Susan Milligan, and barely let Susan get in a word in edgewise:



And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:



And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.

Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.

Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.

Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?


Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication.  Can I have a exemption, too?  Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?

But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).



And she did it again, the next night:



And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:



Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.

It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?

But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.

Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.

(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)

Monday, February 6, 2012

As the Catholic Church continues to embarrass itself on Birth Control...

Sarah Kliff, working for Ezra Klein's Wonkbook, published this handy-dandy fact check on the President's new regulations regarding Health Insurance Companies...note: Health Insurance Companies...having to cover contraception under the Affordable Care act.

Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.

Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)

From today's Washington Post:

How did this all start?

The health reform law requires that insurance companies cover preventive services for women without any co-pay beginning this summer. It did not, however, specify what services to cover — that was left to the Obama administration. With guidance from the Institute of Medicine on the issue, Health and Human Services published a regulation on Aug. 1, 2011 that included birth control as part of the preventive package. That regulation also had a conscience clause, which allows religious employers who object to birth control — and also primarily employ those of their own religion — to be exempt from the requirement. That would allow churches to opt out of the new requirement.

What’s the fight about now?

Some religious leaders say that the exemption wasn’t wide enough: That the Obama administration should allow all faith-based employers regardless of who they employ, to opt out of the new requirement if they object to contraceptives. This wider definition would exempt, among others, Catholic hospitals. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied aggressively for this wider conscience clause, as have a number of prominent Catholics who supported the health reform law. But in final regulations last month, the Obama administration did not expand the exemption.

Let’s say the Obama administration had expanded the conscience clause. Would that allow Catholic hospitals not to provide birth control to their patients?

No, it would not. This regulation only applies to the health insurance that a hospital, charity or other employer provides for its employees. It does not regulate the care that a Catholic charity provides to its patients. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote recently in a USA Today op-ed, “our rule has no effect on the long-standing conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.”

What happens next?

Two Catholic universities have already filed lawsuits challenging the mandated coverage of contraceptives as a violation of religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment. The Catholic bishops are also looking to file a similar challenge, and some observers expect these challenges could wind their way up to the Supreme Court.

The new rule is starting to play a political role, too, in the 2012 election. Republican candidates have come out against the contraceptive requirement. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted it as “a direct assault of freedom of religion.” The Obama campaign and its allies have repeatedly defended the new requirement, attacking the Republican field as anti-contraceptives.

How have contraceptive mandates been handled previously?

Twenty-eight states currently require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, although two exclude emergency contraceptives from that mandate.

Nine states do not have conscience clause. Four states have what the Guttmacher Institute describes as “narrow” exemptions, similar to the federal one, which allows churches and other institutions that primarily employ those of their own religion to opt out. Seven states have “broader” exemptions that cover other religious institutions, but not hospitals. Then eight states have “expansive” conscience clauses that allow at least some hospitals not to provide contraceptive coverage.

What about if you get health care through your employer?

Approximately 90 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, although many may charge co-pays for birth control, which the health reform law will eliminate.

Monday, January 9, 2012

After his Daily Show fiasco, Joe Kaufman explains himself... (VIDEO)

Remember Nezar Hamze, the Muslim Republican, who wanted to gain the admission into the Broward County (FL) GOP?


Well, Mr. Kaufman released this statement to...ahem...explain himself.

Friends,

With the intention of exposing and helping to bring national attention to the infiltration of Islamist groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood, I agreed to do an interview with Comedy Central’s Daily Show, which was to take place on October 25th. The piece aired January 5th.

For over two hours, I was asked questions about my run for Congress against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and my thoughts regarding the Broward Republican Party’s refusal to grant membership to local CAIR leader Nezar Hamze.

I had been outspoken against Hamze gaining a position in the party, due to the extremist nature of the organization he represents and due to his own radical past. I had distributed information to party members detailing these facts (See attachment of flyer).

According to Hamze, he had been "encouraged" to join the Republican Party by Javier Manjarres, a campaign staffer for one of my opponents in the upcoming Republican Primary, Karen Harrington. It is the opinion of many that Manjarres, who has a criminal background, attempted to destroy the local GOP by bringing Hamze in. It backfired, as Hamze was voted down 158 to 11.

Upset, Manjarres - defending Hamze - complained to the Miami Heraldthat the vote was a “set up.” He said the Republican Party was practicing “bigotry.”

Prior to the vote, I had the chance to formally ask Hamze, in front of the party, if he would support either Allen West or myself for Congress and if he was a supporter of terrorism. He declined to answer the questions.* Indeed, Hamze has in the recent past been fervently outspoken against Congressman West and other prominent Republicans, including Adam Hasner. *[reporter's note: It's a suspect claim to say Hamze refused to say he was against terrorism]

Following the vote, I praised local party leaders and members for how they conducted themselves during the voting process. I stated that groups connected to terrorism should have no role in the Republican Party and should not exist within the United States.

Although the Daily Show segment skewed the serious nature of the subject of CAIR and radical Islamic outfits and edited out so much of what I had to say, we can now hope this small shred of national exposure can begin the serious dialogue on the truth regarding these groups.

Make note, the only reason why I did this show was to have another opportunity to speak out against the hate and terror of CAIR and the like. For the past ten years, I have devoted my life to exposing these groups, and I am extremely proud of the work I have done to help protect the nation I grew up in and love.

I have never been afraid of the terror-related groups I write and speak about, even after receiving numerous threats. I most certainly will never be afraid of doing a comedy show.

Joe Kaufman

Yeah.

McClatchy News had this to say in the same article:

But, for now, this is a win for Kaufman. Getting mocked on liberal-leaning Daily Show isn't bad for a Republican (more here). And being an Islam basher isn't a killer in heavily Jewish South Florida. But it's a pretty disastrous prospect to be defined as an object of mockery, even if Kaufman was caught off guard. If Kaufman makes it out of the primary, he'll likely go up against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who's not just beloved in her heavily liberal district. She can define words like "against."

As Randi always says, there's a reason Florida is shaped like it is.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

If you really want to see the President get heckled by a Religious Zealot (VIDEO)



His reaction to these always makes me smile. Most politicians have a "how dare you interrupt me" look on their face as this is going on. The President meanwhile has you "Are you done yet? Can I get on with my speech as the Secret Service knocks you into next week?"

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Yes, Fox News is racist...and Christianist. All Jon Stewart last night did was document it. (VIDEO)



You want a definition of Christianist, and example can be found here, via Andrew Sullivan.

I'm still...mesmerized at the outrage over every single Terrorist incident where the perpetrator is Muslim, yet in instances of violence (Terrorist and non-Terrorist alike)...like for example: the Norway Shooter, Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta Olympic Park Bomber, Jared Loughner, Tim Proffit, the guy who tried to ask Eric Cantor a question at a local event, the Tea Party's constant use of racial imagery and threats, the guy who posted former Rep. Perriello's address on the interwebs, all the HCR Town Hall nonsense (which Fox frequently justified), Pastor Steven Anderson...an actual Pastor!!, the Idaho GOP, Teabaggers showing up with Guns at Obama appearancesthe guy who shot the head of the Local Democratic Party in Arkansas, the man who shot up a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, the who shot Dr. Tiller?

(Things ain't perfect on this side of the aisle.  I will point out that things like the Sparkman case turned out to be B.S. and the thing with Rep. Bobby Rush's niece which also turned out to be wrong.)

You see there's a healthy list of quote-unquote white-slash-supposedly-Christian Domestic Terrorists out there, that Fox does not make their audience hyperventilate over.

Friday, December 17, 2010

ThinkProgress: The only shocking thing about this...is that this guy's shocked!

Apparently, the founder of Muslims for Bush is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that there's anti-Muslim Bigotry in the GOP:

Last week, Muhammad Ali Hasan, a lifelong Republican and the founder of Muslims for Bush, announced he was switching parties because he is disgusted with the GOP’s tolerance of bigotry and adoption of thinly-veiled Islamophobia. Hasan and his family have raised money for Republican candidates in their home state of Colorado, helped GOP campaigns, and Hasan has run for public office on the GOP ticket. But after months of watching conservatives fan the flames of intolerance for political gain, Hasan had had enough, and wrote an open letter to the GOP published last Friday in the Huffington Post:

In watching this summer, with the promotion of Arizona’s SB 1070, calls to revoke the 14th Amendment, anger at the overturn of California’s Proposition 8, and lastly, aggressive protest against a mosque in New York City, I came to question how much the GOP values the vision of our American Saints, the Founding Fathers. Quite frankly, we are no longer the party of Constitutionalists.

Honestly, I think Republicans are convinced that a) They're still the Party of Lincoln, and b) It's still 1864.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Lewis Black, Nate Silver and the shameless utter hypocrisy of the American People (VIDEO)

I was going to do a whole piece on the American's shameless hypocrisy over the full body scanners. Save me! Save me from those nasty Muslims! Do whatever you have to do...to them. Take away my neighbor's civil liberties, I have nothing to hide.

Wait, you want to do something to me? Whooooaaa, you crossed a line there, fella.

Of course, Lewis Black said it (and performed it) way better.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black - Nanny State
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorRally to Restore Sanity

It reminds me of the old adage: Black people.  Why I love black people!  Blacks are some of my best friends...


...but no, I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.

Instead here its: Muslims?  I ain't afraid of no Muslims...but don't let one sit next to me, okay?  And don't let them build a Mosque in my neighborhood...and God help you if you touch my junk!
Still, Nate Silver has a couple interesting points about his own experiences with the Scanners in San Diego (an experience mirrored by Sports Talk Show Host, Jim Rome on his own show this morning, but I don't have audio for that):

My first experience with the full-body scanners, on a flight back to Kennedy Airport from San Diego last month, was also a negative one. I had assumed that, whatever their other faults, the full-body scanners would at least speed up the process of going through the security line; I supposed I imagined something like this scene from the movie Total Recall, in which passengers literally don’t even have to pause to go through security as their bodies are scanned while they walk toward the departure gate.

Instead, the lines were quite slow — possibly because the machines were coming up with a lot of false positives, myself included. As is my usual practice when passing through airport security, I emptied my pants pockets completely — there wasn’t so much as a stick of gum, a penny, or a taxi receipt in there. But the machine nevertheless insisted that that there was something in the back right-hand pocket of my jeans. When the official from the Transportation Security Administration asked me what I had in my pocket, and I told him that there was absolutely nothing, he then performed a pat-down. I was in a chipper enough mood that I wasn’t inclined to make a scene, but I did ask the T.S.A. official whether it was routine for the machines to see things that weren’t there, to which he declined to respond.

This is not necessarily to suggest that my experience was typical — although perhaps there are some particular issues in San Diego, the same airport at which Mr. Tyner experienced his problems, and perhaps there is something of a learning curve as T.S.A. crews learn how to use the new technologies effectively.

And Nate has some interesting stuff about the polls finding Americans in favor of the scanners:

The T.S.A. is fond of citing polls which suggest that about 75 or 80 percent of air travelers approve of the new machines. There are a couple of issues having to do with the timing of these surveys, however. Most of them were conducted in January, immediately after the failed attempt last Christmas day by a Nigerian man, who had concealed explosives in his underwear, to blow up a plane travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit — during which time concern about air travel security would naturally have been quite elevated.

In addition, the surveys were conducted at a time when virtually no Americans would have had experiences with the full-body scanners, which had not yet been installed in any American airports at that time. Again, I have no way of knowing whether my experience at San Diego was at all typical. But if so, I would imagine that other people might have their opinions shifted after actually having encountered the machines.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Simon Schama: "People want to sound off..." (VIDEO)

I like Simon Schama. The American Future remains one of my favorite Historical Documentaries, and this was damn good analysis of America and the American body politic, and it follows up a little on what I said before. Americans fall a bit too much in love with their belief that "I just know what I know" and it always leads to trouble in the American Experiment:

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Did someone in Texas just save a bunch of lives with his skateboard??!?

Well, never mind the fact that Washington beat Dallas 13-7 last night. (I don't care how ugly it was, a win is a win; and a win against the Cowboys is extra sweet!)

But, a Texas Skateboarder in Amarillo just stood up for America in a way that...frankly brings a tear to my eye.

I know, a Texan!

In Amarillo, Texas, David Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, “which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer,” planned to burn the Islamic holy text at a public gathering. But before he could set the book ablaze, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom swooped in and grabbed it:

A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke” scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,” Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo.

A TEXAN!!!!

Good for him. He's one of my nominees for American of the Year.

Friday, September 10, 2010

The President's Press Conference of September 10, 2010 (VIDEO)

I have to say, it was a damn good Press Conference.

No, the President did fine. It was the Press that impressed me. They asked serious, tough, direct, straightforward questions about (gasp) revelant National issues.

"We don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us." (VIDEO)

The full video for the Press Conference will still be posted later today, but I wanted to highlight and underline the same piece of footage that TPM is celebrating right now, and rightfully so. The President just put it as plainly as it can be put: there is no them and us, there's just us:



From the TPM Story:

President Obama concluded his press conference today with a statement on the importance of protecting the rights of American Muslims. "We don't differentiate between them and us," he said. "It's just us. And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain."

Obama was asked about the controversial Park51 Islamic center, and said: "I think I've been pretty clear on my position here. And that is: This country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights, and one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."

"What that means," he continued, "is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site."

"We've got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens in this country," Obama said. "They're going to school with our kids. They're our neighbors. They're our friends. They're our coworkers. And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?"

He continued that there are also Muslims fighting in Afghanistan: "They're out there putting their lives on the line for us, and we've got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes -- they are Americans, and we honor their service."

News Alert: Press Conference at 11:00am Eastern.

The President's holding a Press Conference at 11:00am Eastern, 8am Pacific. I'll post the video when I get it.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

D.W.M. (There and back again, Edition)

Maybe cab-attacker Michael Enright was who we thought he was all along.

According to the New York Daily News (via TPM):

When he was arrested Tuesday in midtown, Enright had a personal diary filled with pages of "pretty strong anti-Muslim comments," a police source said.

The source said Enright's journal equated Muslims with "killers, ungrateful for the help they were being offered, filthy murderers without a conscience."

And check out the picture of himself he posted on Facebook.



Yeah, I wanna be his friend...and I take back what I said yesterday.

Let's be honest, posing with a pump-action shotgun, rockin' it like you're playing Guitar Hero doesn't make you're crazy.  But couple this photo after you've tried to throat slash a New York Cabbie???

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

D.W.M., continued (More weirdness)

According to TPM, the Driving While Muslim story keeps getting weirder and weirder...

Michael Enright is a film student at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan and has been working with the Intersection International, an interfaith and multicultural effort which seeks to promote justice and peace. The project's website is strongly supportive of the Cordoba House project in lower Manhattan and videos of its leader, Imam Faisel Rauf, are posted on their website.

The 21-year-old aspiring filmmaker had been to Afghanistan recently, working on a documentary on a Marine unit his high school buddy served with. His earlier efforts to embed with his friend were the subject of a profile in the local paper.

The documentary he was working on was "completely nonpolitical," Enright told the newspaper. "It's just showing the young people who are spearheading our foreign policy. They're doing what I don't have to do."

Enright told police he had been working with an Internet media company and had recently spent time with a combat unit in Afghanistan filming military exercises according to The New York Post.

A former high school classmate of Enright's, speaking to TPMMuckraker on background, expressed shock about the crime and spent the morning eliminating electronic footprints that connected the two. "It's just disgusting, sad, horrific," he said, adding that, like the group Enright was working with, he supports the Cordoba Project.

You gotta figure that something about Enright was chemically amiss. If he really had truck against Muslims (like say an Cordoba House basher), he had ample opportunity to get stabby in Afghanistan (or maybe he was worried about being outnumbered).

Still, at the very least, this is a person skilled in dealing with Muslims on a daily basis on their home turf. What sets him off her? Either strong drink or a chemical inbalance of another kind, which is going to require a Doctor's help.

D.W.M.

As if New York City wasn't dangerous enough...

I got this from TPM. It looks like the Cabbie is alive (enough to make a statement to the press), and New York City Police are treating this as a hate crime. (I'll set aside how ironic that statement is).

Monday, August 23, 2010

Jeff Merkley's Op/Ed on the Cordoba/Park 51 Community Center.

Just about everyone loved on this piece from Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and...well, they're right to:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive?

Nearly everyone in this debate affirms the constitutional right for the mosque's construction. Indeed, that right is a cherished founding principle. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." It is no accident that the right to worship in accordance with one's own conscience is enshrined in the First Amendment.

But, many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaidaterrorists who attacked our nation.

Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Muslim Americans were among the victims who died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. Muslim American first responders risked their lives to save their fellow citizens that day. Many of our Muslim neighbors, including thousands of Oregon citizens, serve our country in war zones abroad and our communities at home with dedication and distinction.

Some have also argued that the construction of the mosque would hand a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden. I think the opposite is true. Al-Qaida justifies its murder by painting America as a nation at war with Islam. Celebrating our freedom of religion and Muslim Americans' place in our communities is a blow to al-Qaida's ideology of hate and division. We strengthen America by distinguishing, clearly and unequivocally, between our al-Qaida enemy and our Muslim neighbors.

President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing. Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, "These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that."

I have great respect for the sentiments of the survivors and family members of those who died on 9/11, and understand that some may not regard the situation this way. But our fundamental religious freedom and our national security -- in addition to fairness for our fellow citizens -- will be well served by drawing a bright line between our Muslim friends and neighbors at home, and our al-Qaida enemy abroad.

Amen, brother. Amen.

P.S., I stressed different stuff than Greg Sargent did.