I had hope that Benazir Bhutto would prove to be a moderating influence on Pakistan, and would come to some kind of power sharing agreement with President Musharraf, to combat the Islamic Fundamentalists in the nation, and provide a beacon of hope to the Muslim world.  Sadly, that will never come to pass.  I had considered what, exactly, to say on this, and found a link from LGF to a piece by Pamela Bone in the Australian that said it all:

Bhutto was murdered because to her enemies she was Westernised, a traitor to her culture and an American stooge. She was murdered because she had vowed to bring secularism and democracy to Pakistan. She was murdered because she was all these things, and a woman.

“I know I am a symbol of what the so-called jihadists, Taliban and al-Qa’ida, most fear,” she wrote in her autobiography, Daughter of the East. “I am a female political leader fighting to bring modernity, communication, education and technology to Pakistan.”

Yes, fear is the right word. The fear of women, of women’s freedom, and most of all, of women’s sexuality, runs through Islamism. It is a large part of Islamist hatred of the West. “The issue of women is not marginal,” writes the Dutch scholar Ian Buruma. “It lies at the heart of Islamic occidentalism (anti-Westernism).”

Al-Qa’ida has made it perfectly clear that its aim is an Islamic caliphate, first in all nominally Muslim countries and ultimately in the whole world. The jihadis would, if they could, impose the same rampant misogyny on women worldwide as was, and still is to a large extent, imposed on the women of Afghanistan.

Could the murder of Bhutto be enough to wake up Western women to the fact that the war being waged by the Islamists is very much about them? Could the modern Left be persuaded that the people who killed Bhutto are the ones we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places across the world? Can we, in our niceness, stop telling ourselves they are justified in their hatred of us?

It’s a great piece, and I recommend reading the whole thing.  The one mistake she makes is:

They can’t win. No one, apart from extremists like themselves, wants the kind of society they envisage. But they could, if the West fails in its determination, win enough to make life very unpleasant for millions of women for a generation or more.

They most certainly CAN win, for several generations, over a great swath of the globe.  It doesn’t matter what people want, if they aren’t going to stand up and fight.

The West as a whole has already failed to confront this evil.  Only the United States is standing against the tide today, despite the best effirts of the Democrat Party, and the American left in general, who are doing their best to beak our will as well. 

It is curious that the very people that claim to support Womens Rights, and Gay Rights, also support the very people that want to kill all the Gays, and make all women slaves.

Well, while the Archibishop of Canterbury may be trying to “dumb down” christianity, the Archbishop of Wales seems to be on track:

In his Christmas message, the archbishop said: “Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous.”

The archbishop said “atheistic fundamentalism” was a new phenomenon.

He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as “superstitious nonsense”.

As well as leading to Christmas being called “Winterval,” the archbishop said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message.

He also said it led to things like “airlines refusing staff the freedom to wear a cross round their necks” - a reference to the row in which British Airways (BA) suspended an employee who insisted on wearing a cross necklace.

Dr Morgan said: “All of this is what I would call the new “fundamentalism” of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion.

“It leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours.”

He said: “God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety.”

Dr Morgan said it was “perfectly natural” to have a “coherent and rational debate about the tenets of the Christianity”.

But he said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on it were “dangerous” because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.

I think that Dr. Morgan has stumbled in to the Twilight Zone like phenomenon that we in the Colonies call “Political Correctness”.  The difference being that here in the US, the Atheist Fundamentalists are only on the rampage against Christianity, and to a much lesser degree, Judaism.  I see no evidence that they are similarly opposed to Islam - in fact, I think they choose to see Islam as a Race or Ethnicity, rather than a Religion.

From the mouth of the enemy himself, comes this report from Al-Jazeera:

 Hundreds of protesters have marched through the Sudanese capital Khartoum demanding death for a British school teacher convicted of insulting Islam.

The protesters chanted “no one lives who insults the prophet”, a day after Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation for allowing her class to named a teddy bear Mohammad.

They waved green Islamic flags, held up ceremonial swords and chanted religious and nationalist slogans as they took to the streets after Friday prayers.

The naming of a toy animal after Islam’s most revered prophet has sparked great controversy in the African nation.

Can we PLEASE now move beyond the rediculous idea that the Islamists (or Salafists, or Wahabbis, or Muslim Fundamentalists, or Islamokazes, or whatever you want to call them) are somehow reasonable people, that we just need to learn to get along with?

Keep in mind, that in another part of Sudan, Muslims are enslaving and killing Christians, becuase their religion (of peace) allows them to.

From the Daily Mail (UK):

At the age of 27 this young woman (Toni Vernelli) at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

I agree completely that people of Ms. Vernelli’s political/social proclivities should voluntarily be sterilzed.  In fact, I hoper that it becomes vogue, and a full fad/trend for such folks.

Is there any way that we could convince Lawyers to go the same route?

In an opinion piece in the UW Daily, Chris Heide presents the argument that Pharmacists should have no choice in dispensing birth control drugs:

In July 2007, several Washington pharmacists “filed a federal lawsuit over a regulation requiring them to sell emergency contraception, saying it violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between ‘their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs,’” according to the AP.

A pharmacist’s responsibility to his or her customer must trump his or her personal values.

…

Few people would appreciate a dose of morally superior advice from a pharmacist when they go to pick up a prescription. A person’s autonomy over his or her own body is sacrosanct. It must be protected from interference by both church and state.

I agree with Heide that I would not welcome commentary from my druggist concerning my prescription. But that is not the issue here. I am unaware of any case where a pharmacist has proselytized or evangelized to anyone concerning contraceptive prescriptions. What is at issue is whether a pharmacist must prescribe any drug for any reason, regardless of their personal convictions.

In addition, the author returns to the basic illogic of the pro-choice activist, by extending the right to be “sacrosanct” in ones own body, to the body and life of another person, just because the other person in question resides within, and is dependent upon, the person making the choice.

In essence, by a requiring a pharmacists to dispense RU-486, the so-called “Morning After” pill; which blocks a hormone, to essentially chemically terminate an early pregnancy; you are requiring that pharmacist to aid, abet, and participate in what they may consider murder of another human being.

I wonder if Chris Heide would extend this logic to all Gynecologists, requiring them to perform abortions on demand? The same flawed logic follows…

If a drug is approved by the FDA and prescribed by a doctor, then a person has a legal right to obtain and consume that drug. A pharmacists refusal to fill a prescription could put the lives of his or her customers at risk.

No Argument from me. If Doctor prescribes a drug, a person should be able to get that drug. But in this capitalist market economy we live in, there are more drug stores and pharmacies available today than there are places indoors to smoke a cigar, while you have a cocktail.  In my area alone, on a three mile stretch of (highway 161) there are three Walgreens, two Rite-Aids, A Safeway, an Albertsons/Sav-On, a Fred Meyer, and two Wal-Marts (I am sure I am missing some more here, but you get the point) where a person can get a prescription filled. By what stretch of logic must EVERY pharmacist, working EVERY drug outlet be forced to act against their conscience?

And of course, we have my all time favorite straw man argument, thrown in to confuse matters, and justify the coercion of a pharmacist to act against their faith:

Sexual promiscuity is a problem with teenagers in the United States. However, restricting access to birth control options such as emergency contraception does not prevent teenagers from having sexual intercourse. It simply makes them less prepared and definitely less safe while having sex.

Of course, when you turn this argument around (Gun use is a problem with criminals and nutbars in the United States. However, restricting access to Guns does not prevent criminals and nutbars from using Guns. It simply means that they can be sure their victims cannot shoot back.) the very same people look at you like you are from Mars.

A person certainly is entitled to his or her moral beliefs and should be applauded for defending them. However, if pharmacists feel that their moral objections would prevent them from performing all aspects of the job, then they should simply quit.

Referring back to my previous response, why not let the market decide? The various Pharmacy owners should be allowed to decide, as a matter of policy, whether or not their employees must dispense any and all drugs prescribed, regardless of their personal convictions? At that point, the pharmacist in question is free to find another job, at a pharmacy that supports their freedom to fully follow the articles of their faith.

But of course, for those that haven’t actually read the opinion piece in question, Chris Heide’s root problem here is not as much freedom of prescription access, as it is an apparent fear that a person would allow their religion to influence their public life, with a dose of fear of America becoming a Christian Theocracy thrown in for flavor.

While addressing an international conference of Catholic pharmacists Monday, Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists to refused dispensing medications that have “immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia,” according to the Associated Press.

He argued that pharmacists have a duty to protect the lives of humans from conception until natural death. This includes all drugs that would inhibit normal human life.

…

The pope’s suggestions would incite something of an illegal coup in this country. Religious freedom is a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. To refuse to fill a prescription for deep religious values would be to impose those values on other citizens.

This is different than pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for their personal beliefs, because normal citizens have no other alternatives to obtain their meds. This would violate the first amendment and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Let’s hope that the pope’s suggestion never becomes a legal reality in our country.

And of course, we need to add a dash of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

Reuters also reported that last August President George W. Bush said he supported restricting access to emergency contraception for minors.

Because any University student in America today KNOWS that President Bush is trying to establish a Christian Theocracy in America today.  And (see straw man statement above) minors are going to have sex anyway, so not supplying them with the morning after pill is JUST CRUEL.  God Forbid (sorry for the religious figure of speech) that their Parents actually teach them some morals and discipline.  Oh right, that’s not allowed today…