That’s the question you have to ask as you read the story of Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest for over 20 years, who just recently announced that she had also become a Muslim about 15 months ago. See any conflict here? Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles sure does:

Oh, she’s that sort of Christian, at the faith cafeteria, picking up the Jell-O of Jesus Loves You but passing by the steaming piles of Original Sin and the complicated meringue of the Trilogy.

Since I picked up a plate full o’ Christianity when I passed through the cafeteria line, it would actually be easier for me to be a Satanist — at least they believe Jesus is the Son of God — than a Muslim.

But then, I’m hardly as intellectual as Redding. Maybe I’m just a dupe to the simple faith that’s been around for 2,000 years saving souls, and should be more modern and learn to accept flexi-faith since it will make me feel better. After all, that’s what drew her in, this feeling good thing:

Rev. Redding sounds like a mess to me — a very screwed up dhimmi, that’s for sure. There’s nothing reconcilable between these two faiths that would allow one to actually believe the viability of and practice both at the same time. Laer also has a warning for her in his last graph. If she’s smart, she’d certainly heed that one!

Technorati Tags: Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, Cheat Seeking Missiles

The next time some idiot dhimmi tells you how peaceful and benevolent the “Religion of Peace” is, consider the fate of Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former member of the Dutch Parliament and author of The Caged Virgin and Infidel. She left her birth country for the Netherlands to escape the persecution for her leaving the “faith”, her friend and co-creator of the film Submission about her experiences, Theo Van Goh was murdered by Islamic extremists, and Ali faced constant death threats as long as she stayed in Holland. So, she came to the United States for true freedom and safety — freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom from constant death threats. Gee, that didn’t last very long! From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (h/t: Bryan @ Hot Air & Jihad Watch.)

Say what you want about your religion.

Go ahead, say anything that comes into your mind — even if you don’t agree with your minister, your priest, your rabbi. Even if you think you’re right and they’ve got it all wrong, as long as you’re not making a direct threat to someone, you can disagree or turn your back and walk away to another faith or to no faith at all.

Here, in America, it’s OK. In a land of more than 3,000 diverse religions, your right to religious liberty is a guaranteed protection under the First Amendment.

“The key in the U.S. from the beginning has been to make sure all religious groups not only understand freedoms, but connect them to their own commitment,” said Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar and director of educational programs at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., and Nashville.

A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.

Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali’s attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, “Infidel,” and movie, “Submission,” are “poisonous and unjustified” and create dissension in their community.

Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders’ concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.

Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.

“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

Ali was a victim of genital mutilation, and female subjugation before leaving her faith and her birth country. In the Dutch Parliament she was trying to address issues of mass-migration of Muslims into the Netherlands and their unwillingness to integrate themselves into Dutch society and culture. For those efforts, she was the recipient of many death threats.

Some religion of peace, huh? As far as I’m concerned, it’s the same song, second verse — over and over and over again! When are the “moderate” Muslims gonna stand up here in the U.S. and tell the radical members within their midst to stuff it? When are the moderate Muslims gonna stand up for the constitutional rights of all Americans to worship, or not, as they please? As far as I can tell, that when is probably never. As Bryan at Hot Air states:

If the US isn’t safe for her, it isn’t safe for you or me either.

You got that right! All I can say is that I hope Ali is at the range, workin’ on her skills.

Technorati Tags: “Religion of Peace”, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo Van Goh, Imam Fouad ElBayly

‘America at a Crossroads’ is a CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) funded series of eleven documentaries that begins airing on your local PBS affiliate starting next week. Looking over the Los Angeles Times staff writer Matea Gold’s review in today’s Calendar section, I’m finding a few mixed messages, but lots of liberal bias, not to mention that I’m not finding something that should be the REAL STORY concerning this series — the missing film, “Islam vs. Islamism: Voices From The Muslim Center” by Martyn Burke, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev of ABG Films, Inc.

I first heard about this series and the film, “Islam vs. Islamism: Voices From The Muslim Center”, on Hugh Hewitt’s show April 4th. Frank Gaffney, who with his associates at the Center For Security Policy had made the film, was explaining to Hugh how politicized the process was at CPB, PBS and WETA and how the film, all paid for and ready to air, will not see the light of day — at least not on PBS.

Here’s a short segment with Gaffney confronting PBS’s Robin MacNeil on the Diane Rehm show.

DR: Frank Gaffney, you’re on the air.

FG: Good morning, Diane, and good morning, Robin. We are among a small team of filmmakers who had a film selected for the Crossroads series, and unfortunately, apparently, those who have been responsible for making the final decisions on it found our treatment of moderate Muslims, anti-Islamist Muslims, in the face of the efforts by Islamist Muslims to suppress them, in America, in Canada, and in Europe, to be too hot to handle, and insisted on dramatic changes that would have really gut the film and its content and its message. The film has been suppressed, in short, by PBS at the moment.

DR: Suppressed, Robin?

RM: Which film is that?

FG: This is a film called Islam Vs. Islamist.

RM: Yes, I’m very familiar with it, and I can answer the charge. It is not been suppressed. It has been, it was rejected for the twelve because it was considered highly one-sided in its approach to, and alarmist in its approach to exactly what the woman in Texas was just saying.

Not only was it not selected — actually it was going to be scheduled and after being deep-sixed by the PBS cognoscenti another film was hurriedly commissioned to take its place — a film that would show the radical Muslims in America in a much better light. More on that in a minute. Back to Hugh’s show and more Gaffney reaction:

HH: Well, Frank Gaffney, alarmist and one-sided about the war against the Islamist jihadists. I guess that’s a charge to which you’ll cop?

FG: Well, actually, I won’t.

HH: I know. Go ahead, it’s a set up.

FG: No, we went to great lengths, under enormous pressure from PBS, to dumb down this film to keep it from being hyperbolic, let alone alarmist. The thing that comes across, though, Hugh, if Americans can actually see this film as opposed to having it be censored by PBS, is that it is alarming what these anti-Islamist Muslims are telling us. They’re alarmed. They’re frightened, not only for their own lives, which are in many cases literally at risk, but for what they see happening to Western societies where these Islamists are insinuating themselves and creating what they call parallel societies. And perhaps your audience is aware of this unbelievable ruling by a German judge, one of the countries under assault from the Islamists just a weekend or two ago, in which she found that a Muslim woman could not divorce her Muslim husband because he was beating her, on the grounds that the Koran permits him to beat her, a prime example of the parallel society that we’re chronicling in this film, and that we think the American people are entitled…they paid for it, they’re entitled to see it.

Can’t let the free Western world get a true understanding of what the Dhimmis and the multi-culteralists are up to, can’t make any dispersions against radical Islam — that’s taking a side against a religion, which is only allowed to happen against Jews and Christians, not against Muslims. Maybe it was that “Voices From The Muslim Center” part of the title that got these guys in hot water at CPB? Maybe!

HH: Voices from the Muslim center.

FG: And it is ready to go. It is a powerful film, not because, again, of hot, you know, narration or music, but because of the power of the stories told by these anti-Islamist Muslims themselves.

HH: Now Martin Burke, whom you partnered with in producing this, and I want again make clear, even though you’re with the Center For Security Policy, it is not a Center For Security Policy film, and you are not working on it as in your capacity of Center For Security Policy. But Martin Burke is an experienced filmmaker?

FG: He is quite accomplished. He has done a number of feature films, documentaries and others, and has been keenly following this story, actually going back to twenty years ago when he made a documentary about the Wahabis and the Islamists and the Soviets and the evolving story in Afghanistan.

Sounds like some real bonifides there for making a film of this nature. But, just wait until you read the rest of this to see just how far the CPB, PBS and WETA went to gut it, before just tossing it aside.

HH: All right, www.securefreedom.org, also producer, along with Martin Burke, of a new film, Islam Vs. Islamist: Voices From The Muslim Center, originally funded by, well, funded completely by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, meaning your money, pursuant to a competition to bring new voices about crucial issues to the screen. And Frank, how did that actually happen?

FG: Well, it was a very exciting idea. About two, two and a half years ago, the CPB, as it calls itself, put out requests for proposals from 440 filmmakers, came up with ideas. We, working with Martin Burke, my other colleague, Alex Alexiev, helped put together the proposal. It was 35 out of 440 that was deemed meritorious enough to get a research and development grant. It was then down selected further, to be just one of twenty films that received a very substantial grant to actually make the movie. And at every step along the way, there was a rigorous competition, there was an opportunity for, you know, other films to go head to head with ours. And in each of these instances, with the help of a very distinguished board of advisors that CPB commissioned, ours was selected, because the story of these anti-Islamist Muslims, these endangered species, was recognized to be so compelling and so powerful, and the filmmaking of Martin Burke so, well, high quality, that we were given the go ahead. And in fact, the CPB at one point said we were going to be one of eight films. It’s now turned out to be one of eleven films that were going to be rolled out on the 15th of April, coming up very shortly. In fact, Robin MacNeil was on the Diane Rehm show, you played that tape earlier, for the purpose of promoting this series of films. Unfortunately, ours is not going to be one of them, as he said, in his own words, because it is alarmist, and extremely one-sided. And I just plead with Pat Harrison, a wonderful woman who runs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and who has been very helpful to us to this point, to help allow us to have the opportunity to show this film on another network, since PBS is not going to do it, as soon as possible, because frankly, it’s very timely.

American people need to know about it, and I think frankly, they need to know about it more than they need to know about Robin MacNeil’s vision of Muslims in America, which it turns out, according to his website, he, by the way, got a film as part of this series when he became the moderator, that was not selected as part of the competition. It wasn’t even submitted as part of the competition. It was one of a number of examples, Hugh, of instances in which it appears that the people at PBS were so determined to keep our film from being shown, that they actually commissioned another film outside of the competition to cover some of the same subject matter. But interestingly enough, according to Robin MacNeil, the Muslims in America are the Muslims of the Muslim Student Association, a very well known Wahabi front organization, credited with recruiting terrorists on American college campuses. And that’s the subject of his film, his vision of American Muslims, as opposed to the anti-Islamist Muslims that are featured in ours. And that’s the man who’s deciding, it appears, at least in league with others, deciding as to which of the films is one-sided, or alarmist. And I’m afraid…

Did you get that? Burke and Gaffney’s film just didn’t suit the preconceived notions of the PBS liberal elite — thy would rather that you hear what the radical Muslim groups in America are saying, not the anti-Islamist Muslims. That makes no sense to me at all. Of course the mind of modern Leftists makes no sense to me at all, either.

HH: Now Frank Gaffney, I want to make sure everyone understands, this was not some out of left field, or right field whack-job propaganda piece. This went through the whole PBS process, and at the very last minute, they said nah, we’re not going to show it, because we don’t like the message. I must say, that is extraordinarily offensive to any 1st Amendment-minded…it might be technically acceptable under PBS guidelines, but it just offends the idea of those of us who deal in the world of ideas every day.

FG: Well, I’m hoping that the larger story will come out here, Hugh, because if you are as minded as I know you are, and I’m sure most of your audience are, there will be much to find offense with here, not least of which was, if you can believe it, after those advisors who helped vet these films in a very high quality way from CPB’s point of view, PBS became responsible, with WETA, their flagship station in Washington, for the film. And at that point, our problems grew enormously. And importantly, they hired as advisors five people, one of whom was a publicly acknowledged, in fact, avowed admirer of Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. And it happens that one of the features of our film is an insight into how the Wahabis started buying the Nation of Islam with $1 million dollars to build black Wahabi mosques in America. This woman not only was completely inappropriate for advising on a film, had an obvious conflict of interest, but much worse, she took our film in the rough cut form, and showed it to the Nation of Islam. And the WETA people, and the PBS people, found nothing wrong with that at all.

I’m, I’m at a loss for words about that last graph, at least at a loss of words that I allow on this blog. Your tax dollars support the CPB and PBS. This is what you get for your money.

Now — finally — bringing the title of this post into the story. The LA Times’ Matea Gold writes about the remaining eleven films, from a standpoint that the CPB has finally found its way back from the brink of radical Conservatism — which had been foisted upon it by the Bush administration.

“America at a Crossroads” did not get off to an auspicious start. From the beginning, the ambitious $20-million effort to examine the complexities of the post-Sept. 11 world through a series of documentaries — an initiative of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the private nonprofit that distributes federal funds to public television and radio — was greeted with skepticism.

Independent producers and local station programmers, alarmed that CPB officials at the time were agitating for more conservatives on the air, feared the venture was driven by a political agenda. Tensions flared publicly at a March 2004 forum in Manhattan, where hostile audience members exchanged angry accusations with a panel assembled to discuss the project.

“This whole thing stinks,” declared an employee of the National Black Programming Consortium.

Since then, tempers have cooled substantially.

The 11-part “Crossroads” series that will air in prime time next week on PBS has received largely positive reviews in the public broadcasting community, including from many station executives initially wary of it.

God forbid that the American public actually have a dialog about what has happened to us and the rest of the world since 9/11. Especially in light of the emergence of radical Islam as a world-wide threat — might make universal health care and global warming seem insignificant — and good little Leftists can’t have anything like that.

“I would not have said this was my first choice for where we should have put our efforts,” said Ron Pisaneschi, director of broadcasting at Idaho Public Television. “We have limited amounts of funds at our disposal and we have a lot of different things we could spend it on. But at the end of the day, I think we have 11 documentaries that are pretty darn strong.”

Three years in the making, “Crossroads” serves as a measure of how much public broadcasting has succeeded in moving past the political tumult that recently gripped it.

“I think the system is working together very strongly now,” said Greg Diefenbach, CPB’s new senior vice president of television programming. “This series evidences that public broadcasting is alive and well.”

Evidence that the Left is firmly back in control of Public Broadcasting!

Since then, public broadcasting officials have worked to rid “Crossroads” of any political taint. Washington public television station WETA took over production last year and brought in veteran PBS journalist Robert MacNeil to host it.

“I was intrigued by it,” MacNeil said. “What better can public broadcasters do than steer the dialogue and ask some serious questions?”

Uh, go back up and read Gaffney’s remarks again. I don’t think that WETA’s involvement and MacNeil’s hosting, not to mention his own non-contest film being part of the eleven, does anything to “rid” the series “of any political taint.” In fact, it has done the exact opposite.

PBS officials said the 11 documentaries being shown next week — culled from more than 400 proposals — would expose the work of filmmakers new to PBS and would showcase perspectives not often given a broad platform.

Just not the views of America’s anti-Islamist Muslims — the platform wasn’t broad enough for that!

So, there you have it, folks. Once again the LA Times misses, or ignores because of left-leaning bias, the real story behind a story. If the Times really wanted to report about “America at a Crossroads”, what they should have done was tell us about the “one that got away”. Funny, that wasn’t even mentioned today — and we all paid for it!

Don’t ya just love paying for something and not getting it? I didn’t think so . . .

Is Europe toast, or what? This is being reported by the UK’s Daily Mail, but don’t be surprised to see something like this proposed over here. CAIR must be ecstatic!

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades – where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem – because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history ‘as a vehicle for promoting political correctness’.

Once that PC genie got out of the bottle, all hell has broken loose. Neo-Natzis must feel like its Christmas or something, not that that would be PC to teach, either. The DM goes on:

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into ‘emotive and controversial’ history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting ‘anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils’.

It added: “In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

“But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques.”

God help us all if FACTS are taught in public schools instead of the propaganda and hate being spewed in the radical European mosques. Ignore history if the truth hurts.

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: “History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable.”

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers – particularly at primary level – was leading to history being taught in a ‘shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning’.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often ‘bland, simplistic and unproblematic’ and bored pupils.

Now, there’s a choice bit o’ info. Maybe it’s more laziness or incompetence on the part of the teachers than much of anything else. As free Westerners, we’re going to pay an increasingly terrible price for all the lax and self-centered educational follies of the Baby Boomer generation. Globalization, multiculturalism, secularism combined with a reverence by the elite for Euro-centric concepts and morals continues to escalate the decline of our civilization. Believe me, the Islamofascists have no self doubt, have no sense of fair-play, and don’t give a rat’s ass what you or I think — and won’t be at all appreciative of the efforts of the misguided Brit teachers to not hurt their feelings. The truth is, they want to hurt a lot more than someone’s feelings . . .

Technorati Tags: Holocaust, GCSE coursework, Crusades, Chris McGovern

If you take a side trip over to Hot Air, today’s Vent by Michelle Malkin shows us that Google-owned YouTube is up to its old Dhimmitude tricks once again with the banning of atheist Nick Gisburne’s video in which he recites the violent passages from the Quran. Just one more of many barrings, removals, acct. closures by the YouTube hierarchy over alleged slights or insults to the Islamic religion. Funny, not funny ha ha, but you can rant, rave, insult, demean and decry Christianity as much as you want in the YouTube world, but make mention of the fact that most of the world’s most vile, disgusting, deliberate violence against innocents is being executed in the name of the “religion-of-peace” and you get the YouTube hook!

Thanks Michelle for keepin’ it real! And thanks, Google — for livin’ up to your corporate motto, “Do no evil” — Not!

Where’s Jeeves when you need ‘im? (db)

Technorati Tags: YouTube, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Dhimmitude

You can view the video here: The Jawa Report.

And what’s worse, there is a YouTube club that targets anti-radical Islamic videos to get them and their creators banned from YouTube.

You paying attention, Google? Probably not . . . “Do no evil” — that’s a crock! (db)