Murder of Governor in Pakistan called a blow to prospects of justice for Christian mother on death row.

Amplify’d from www.compassdirect.org

Murder of Governor in Pakistan Darkens ‘Blasphemy’ Case

Assassination called a blow to prospects of justice for Christian mother on death row.

(Photo: File photo)

Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer’s November visit to Asia Noreen in jail had greatly encouraged her.

LAHORE, Pakistan, January 5 (CDN) — The case of Asia Noreen, the first Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan on blasphemy charges, suffered a major setback when her most vocal supporter, the governor of Punjab Province, was gunned down by one of his police bodyguards yesterday (Jan. 4) in Islamabad. The lives of Noreen and Gov. Salman Taseer were at risk since the day he, his wife and daughter visited her in the Sheikhupura District Jail on Nov. 22, after news of her conviction appeared in the media. Taseer had openly criticized the blasphemy statutes and vowed to try to repeal the “black laws” in parliament. He also promised Noreen (also called Asia Bibi) that he would recommend a presidential pardon for her. The governor’s assurance and his support for Noreen gave new hope to the impoverished mother of two children and step-mother to three others – and drew violent condemnation from Islamist forces, sparking countrywide protests. “The governor’s visit gave us hope that all was not lost,” Sohail Johnson of Sharing Life Ministries Pakistan, which has pursued Noreen’s case from the onset, told Compass. “We believed that God had sent the governor to help us … his words of support boosted Noreen’s morale, and she was actually quite optimistic about the outcome of her appeal in the high court.” He said the murder of Taseer in broad daylight had shocked all those opposing the blasphemy laws, and that “there is little hope of these laws ever being repealed.” Johnson confirmed that Noreen’s life was at high risk ever since the governor had highlighted her case. “The local Islamist forces believed that President [Asif Ali] Zardari would pardon Noreen on Taseer’s recommendation, and this was unacceptable to them,” said Johnson, confirming that intelligence agencies had determined that Islamists had plotted to kill Noreen inside jail to make an example of her. “Noreen was earlier allowed two hours in the morning and two in the evening to go outside her cell to relax. After the intelligence information, the jail authorities restricted her movement, and now she is kept in the cell at all times. A security guard has also been deployed with her.” He added that news of the assassination of the governor would surely panic the Christian woman. Johnson said Noreen’s appeal of her conviction had yet to be taken up for hearing by the Lahore High Court, but that the murder would definitely affect the course of justice. “The governor’s brutal murder has diminished our hopes for justice for Noreen,” he said. Her family, he said, has been in hiding since Islamist parties started protests in favor of the blasphemy laws. “Even I am keeping a low profile these days,” Johnson said. Taseer and Noreen were declared “Wajibul Qatil” (liable to be killed) by radical Islamic clerics. A cleric in Peshawar and a local politician in Multan offered a combined sum of 50 million rupees (US$579,300) for anyone who killed Taseer and Noreen. Protests, shut-down strikes and general uproar pressured Pakistan’s federal government to announce that the blasphemy laws would not be repealed. Taseer, however, continued to publicly vent his opposition – even using Twitter – to the blasphemy laws, which effectively mandate death for anyone convicted of insulting Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Although courts typically overturn convictions, and no executions have been carried out, rights activists say the laws are used to settle rivalries and persecute religious minorities. On Friday (Dec. 31), Taseer had tweeted “I was under huge pressure 2 cow down b4 rightest pressure on blasphemy. Refused. Even if I’m the last man standing.” The assassination is significant not simply because of the person targeted and the reason behind it, but because of the broader societal implications. “[It points to] the presence of radical elements inside the Pakistani state apparatus,” said columnist Cyril Almeida. He said that the fact that Taseer’s own bodyguard shot him is not just worrying because it indicates a failure of the vetting process but because it points to “the extent to which this poison has affected the Pakistani state. The investment in jihad has come home to roost.” In the hours immediately following the killing, television anchors hosted several shows in which guests, while stopping short of openly supporting the murder of Taseer, did speak out in support of killing those deemed to have blasphemed. Some Pakistanis have reported that they received text messages on their mobile phones praising the assassination. Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said the guard, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, told police that he killed Taseer because of the governor’s opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Qadri had escorted the governor from Rawalpindi to Islamabad on Tuesday (Jan. 4). A 26-year-old policeman from Barakhao on the outskirts of Islamabad, Qadri had reportedly transferred to the Elite Force after commando training in 2008. Thus far, he has not been identified as a member of any violent Muslim extremist groups but is considered devout in his faith. Noreen was convicted under Section 295-C of the defamation statutes for alleged derogatory comments about Muhammad, which is punishable by death, though life imprisonment is also possible. Section 295-B makes willful desecration of the Quran or a use of its extract in a derogatory manner punishable with life imprisonment. Section 295-A of the defamation law prohibits injuring or defiling places of worship and “acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens.” It is punishable by life imprisonment, which in Pakistan is 25 years. END *** A photo of Taseer visiting Noreen in jail is available electronically. Contact Compass Direct News for pricing and transmittal. Read more at www.compassdirect.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkp3v

Amplify’d from www.albertmohler.com

The Deadly Logic of Anti-Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy is a serious matter. Jesus himself underlined the importance with the statement: “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” [Luke 12:10] In this case, the meaning is clear — those who resist the work of the Holy Spirit in calling sinners to faith in Christ will never be forgiven.

Christianity is not an honor religion. Christ did not call upon his disciples to defend his honor, but to believe in him and to follow him in obedience. In this verse, Jesus affirms that even slander against him can be forgiven, but the unforgivable sin is obstinate rejection of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit.

In recent weeks, a coalition of Muslim nations has demanded (again) that the United Nations criminalize blasphemy. A considerable number of Christians might, at least at first hearing, think this as a reasonable demand. After all, we do not disagree that slander against the honor of God is a very, very dangerous sin. But anti-blasphemy laws place the power of theological coercion into the hands of the state, and this is deadly dangerous.

In Pakistan, for example, Section 295C of the criminal code states that “derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet … either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly … shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

On November 8, 2010, a woman named Asia Bibi, a Christian, was sentenced to death by hanging just because she had entered into what was claimed to be a religious argument with Muslims. She was arrested after an Islamic mob surrounded her house and demanded her death.

This past Monday the governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, was assassinated by one of his own security guards after the Governor had stated words of support for Asia Bibi. The assassin said that he murdered Governor Taseer in an act of “protecting Allah’s religion.”

Saroop Ijaz, a human rights attorney in Lahore, Pakistan, explained in the Los Angeles Times that, though no one has yet been executed under the blasphemy laws, “at least 32 people have been killed while awaiting trial or after they have been acquitted of blasphemy charges.”

Anti-blasphemy laws serve the honor logic of Islam but not the evangelistic aims of Christianity. It is wrong to give governments the power of theological coercion. Seen in this light, blasphemy is no small matter, but anti-blasphemy laws are deadly barriers to the proclamation of the Gospel.

Saroop Ijaz, “The Real Blasphemy,” Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, January 5, 2011.

Related Posts Why Do the Heathen Rage? — International Blasphemy Day (Audio) Blasphemy Day in America (Audio) Anti-Christmas Bias and the Political Correctness Police Anti-Christian Discrimination? It’s Getting Hot Out There The Logic of Penal Substitution Read more at www.albertmohler.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkp36

RE: Email from Andrea D. Saunders attorney in the Office of General Counsel for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Church

This should be a wake up call to all Adventists out there regarding the organized church and their being a corporate 501 (c) (3) entity!!!



I received this email from the SDA for posting one of their articles. Whats the point? They are getting the credit for it, and I don't get anything out of posting it. I don't even get paid or sale anything on my web site! The Catholic Church hasn't even sent me any such thing for posting their stuff YET.



Here is the email>



Dear Mr. Bosserman,



I am an attorney in the Office of General Counsel for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and I am writing on behalf of my client, the Adventist Review. One of my duties is to ensure that my client’s intellectual property (copyrights and trademarks) is protected under the law.



It has come to my attention that your blog on the Inquisition News website located at http://inquisitionnews.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/c-s-lewis-a-bridge-to-rome-yet-many-adventist-adore-him-as-a-writer-2/,



displays virtually the entire article, “Adventist Professor to Enter C.S. Lewis’ World” by Megan Brauner. This article is an online publication of the Adventist Review found at http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3762, and cannot be re-published without written authorization. While you are certainly free to express any ideas you wish in your blog, please understand that you may not use any copyrighted material owned by the Adventist Review, without prior written authorization.



In light of these facts, I am requesting that you remove the aforementioned article from your blog, website or other use. I would appreciate you acknowledging receipt of this communication as well as your intent to remove this copyrighted work, within the next fifteen (15) business days.



Thank you for understanding and for working with us on this matter.



Sincerely,



Andrea



Andrea D. Saunders



Associate General Counsel



Office of General Counsel



Seventh-day Adventist® World Headquarters



phone: 301-680-6334



email: saundersa@gc.adventist.org



CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE



The contents contained in this electronic message are legally privileged and confidential intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this electronic message is prohibited. Please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the content of this electronic message may result in the breach of certain laws or the infringement of the rights of third parties. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone. I thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.



I removed everything but the title from the article. I copied and pasted the article from Royal Bloods web site at: http://wakeupremnantpeople.blogspot.com/2010/09/cslewis-bridge-to-rome-yet-many.html

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkp27

Amplify’d from www.albertmohler.com

No Buzzing Little Fly — Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is So Important

A buzzing little fly is only a nuisance. The theory of evolution is no mere nuisance — it represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times.

The folks at BioLogos ended the year 2010 by declaring “The Dawning of a New Day.” Darrel Falk, president of The BioLogos Foundation, wrote with both passion and anticipation as he reviewed the past year and the impact of BioLogos on the evangelical scene. If making a splash was their ambition, they certainly achieved it. And yet, Dr. Falk clearly seems frustrated that the task undertaken by BioLogos is so daunting.

He reports that BioLogos has “barely begun to deal with the issues in a substantive manner.” Furthermore, he explains that the task of convincing evangelical Christians to accept the theory of evolution represents no small challenge. “Why is the task so difficult?” he wonders.

He suggests three reasons for this difficulty. First, he argues that the church pays far too much attention to a “scientific enterprise” that isn’t, in his view, scientific. He points specifically to the work of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Falk, representing the position of BioLogos, insists that the evolutionary “scientific enterprise” is the authoritative world of true science. “For hundreds of years now science has been successfully informing us about the natural world,” he insists. Of course, throughout the centuries, many scientific certainties have been embarrassingly overthrown.

Those who oppose evolution “are taking the Church down a dead end road,” he asserts. Then, after chiding the church for paying too much attention to anti-evolutionary voices, he offers a sentence which, taken seriously, represents a breathtaking intellectual commitment:

Scientific knowledge is not deeply flawed and we cannot allow ourselves to be led down this pathway any longer.

That is nothing less than a manifesto for scientism. Science, as a form of knowledge, is here granted a status that can only be described as infallible. The dangers of this proposal are only intensified when we recognize that “scientific knowledge” is not even a stable intellectual construct. Nevertheless, these words do reveal why BioLogos pushes its agenda with such intensity.

Second, Dr. Falk explains that the difficulty of conducting serious disagreements among Christians is itself a limiting factor. “Can we stay Christians even when we disagree so sharply about all sorts of things?” he asks. Well, the good news for Dr. Falk is that the church has long experience with serious theological disagreements. The bad news is that many of these disagreements have turned ugly. In one sense, some degree of risk is involved simply because the stakes are potentially so high. The controversy between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century was not a calm debate followed by refreshments in the church basement. Both sides recognized that nothing less than the most basic understandings of Gospel, Scripture, and ecclesiology were at stake.

In our current context, I would suggest to Dr. Falk that he and his colleagues should make their arguments with clarity, submit them with charity, and expect the same in response. We will all be judged by both the spirit and the substance of our communications and arguments. At the same time, we do not serve the cause of Christ by denying the importance and implications of our disagreements. Dr. Falk and his colleagues at BioLogos believe, and I take them as sincere in their belief, that those of us who oppose evolutionary science are doing the church a great disservice, leading the church into an intellectual disaster, and robbing Christianity of intellectual credibility among scientists.

Those are significant concerns, and they cannot be asserted as if this is all an intellectual tea party. In return, those of us who oppose the BioLogos agenda of embracing evolution do so because we are concerned that their approach means nothing less than the church’s capitulation to scientism and the embrace of a fatal subversion of both biblical authority and the integrity of Christian theology. We, too, are animated by central, and not peripheral, concerns. My own goal is to write and communicate nothing that will, by any intemperate spirit, cause me to be embarrassed before the watching world or to bring shame upon the Gospel.

Thirdly, Dr. Falk suggests that, for some of us, “the theological challenges are enormous.” There can be no doubt that he is absolutely correct when he writes that “the theological issues associated with evolutionary creation seem so huge to so many evangelicals.”

He then asks:

Will we ever be able to show the followers of Albert Mohler, John MacArthur and others that Christian theology doesn’t stand or fall on how we understand Genesis 1 or the question of whether Adam and Eve were the sole genetic progenitors of the human race? These are extremely critical issues to many and the task of showing in a convincing manner that evangelical theology doesn’t depend on the age of the earth, and it doesn’t depend upon whether Adam was made directly from dust will likely take decades before it will be convincing to all.

So, Dr. Falk sees the task as that of convincing us that evangelical theology “doesn’t depend” upon affirmations about the age of the earth or the historicity of Adam as “made directly from dust” — but Falk envisions this task as lasting decades “before it will be convincing to all.” With all due respect, I think he will need a longer calendar. Most frustratingly, Dr. Falk’s statement does not acknowledge the fact that the arguments published by BioLogos go far beyond even these important concerns. Articles at BioLogos go so far as to suggest that the Apostle Paul was simply wrong to believe that Adam was an historical person. A recent BioLogos essay argues that Adam and Eve were likely “a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East” to whom God revealed himself “in a special way.” There is a consistent denial of any possibility that Adam and Eve are the genetic parents of the entire human race. The BioLogos approach also denies the historical nature of the Fall, with all of its cosmic consequences. BioLogos has published explicit calls to deny the inerrancy of the Bible. The concerns do not stop here.

The Bible reveals Adam to be an historical human being, the first human being, and the father of all humanity. Adam is included in biblical genealogies, including the genealogy of Jesus Christ. If the arguments offered thus far by BioLogos for resolving the “theological challenges” associated with “evolutionary creation” are any indication of what is likely to come in the future, Dr. Falk and his colleagues will wait a very long time indeed for evangelicals to join their club.

The article mentions me at several turns, suggesting that I “attempted to squash [BioLogos], not with a swat, but with a few delicately placed strokes on his keyboard.” Dr. Falk responded: “BioLogos is not a little fly, however, and it is not going to go away.” Consistent with this assertion, Dr. Falk wrote, “We live in a scientific age and that is not going to change.”

As for me — I am said to represent “a view that takes on the entire scientific enterprise.” He then writes: “To this day, I have not been able to identify a single person who holds a science faculty position in any Biology, Geology or Physics Department at any secular research university in the world who would agree with Dr. Mohler’s view of creation.” Well … ouch. At this point, I am supposed to yield to the authority of science and relinquish my theological concerns and be quiet.

I am willing to accept the authority of science on any number of issues. I am fundamentally agnostic about a host of other scientific concerns — but not where the fundamental truth of the Gospel and the clear teachings of the Bible are at stake.

As I have stated repeatedly, I accept without hesitation the fact that the world indeed looks old. Armed with naturalistic assumptions, I would almost assuredly come to the same conclusions as BioLogos and the evolutionary establishment, or I would at least find evolutionary arguments credible. But the most basic issue is, and has always been, that of worldview and basic presuppositions. The entire intellectual enterprise of evolution is based on naturalistic assumptions, and I do not share those presuppositions. Indeed, the entire enterprise of Christianity is based on supernaturalistic, rather than merely naturalistic, assumptions. There is absolutely no reason that a Christian theologian should accept the uniformitarian assumptions of evolution. In fact, given a plain reading of Scripture, there is every reason that Christians should reject a uniformitarian presupposition. The Bible itself offers a very different understanding of natural phenomena, with explanations that should be compelling to believers. In sum, there is every reason for Christians to view the appearance of the cosmos as graphic evidence of the ravages of sin and the catastrophic nature of God’s judgment upon sin.

Dr. Falk ends his essay with a paragraph that includes this key sentence: “If God really has created through an evolutionary mechanism and if God chooses to use BioLogos and other groups to help the Church come to grips with this issue, then these three huge challenges will begin to melt away as God’s Spirit enables us to look to him and not to ourselves.” I will simply let that sentence speak for itself.

I do not believe that BioLogos is “a buzzing little fly.” To the contrary, I believe that it represents a very significant challenge to the integrity of Christian theology and the church’s understanding of everything from the authority and truthfulness of the Bible to the meaning of the Gospel. A buzzing little fly is only a nuisance. The theory of evolution is no mere nuisance — it represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Darrel Falk, “The Dawning of a New Day,” BioLogos, Friday, December 31, 2010. http://biologos.org/blog/the-dawning-of-a-new-day/ Read more at www.albertmohler.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkozc

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Vatican Gives 'Unprecedented' Access to Church Files for Exorcism Reality Show

The Vatican is teaming up with the Discovery Channel to create a show called The Exorcist Files based on historical Catholic exorcisms. That's just great. The church won't talk about priests abusing kids, but they'll talk about freeing demons.

Send an email to Brian Moylan, the author of this post, at brian@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkoz9

Amplify’d from gawker.com

The End of Newports?

Last year, the U.S. government banned "flavored" cigarettes. Since then, the real fight has raged on: whether to ban menthol cigarettes as well. The end of Newports? Can you imagine? The company that makes Newports says: that's racist!

Lorillard Tobacco makes 90% of its money off of Newports, so a menthol ban would be akin to a bullet in the head of the whole company. The WSJ reports that a government panel (which is somewhat menthol-friendly) will issue recommendations in March that could decide the fate of menthols once and for all.

Since 80% of black American smokers (and nearly half of 12-17 year-old smokers) smoke menthols, Lorillard is taking the sensible step of "buying up a host of menthol-bashing Internet domain names, including MentholKillsMinorities.com, MentholAddictsYouth.com and FDAMustBanMenthol.com." It's also paying "several" PR people to push out editorials against the ban—including Charlotte Roy, who targets black news outlets and tells the WSJ that "she doesn't mention her association with Lorillard" when she speaks to the media.

Despite Lorillard's intrinsic fuckery, we highly doubt menthols will be banned. Too bold, too cold, too revenue-generating.

[WSJ]

Send an email to the author of this post at Hamilton@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkoz5

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Cops Say Heidi Jones Already Admitted to False Rape Charge

WABC weatherperson Heidi Jones entered a not guilty plea today to misdemeanor charges that she falsely told police a "Hispanic man" tried to rape her in Central Park. But according to the criminal complaint, she's already confessed her guilt.

Jones didn't say anything in court, but it might not matter too much:

"I did make this up. I made it up for attention. I have so much stress at work, with my personal life and with my family. I know there is no justification for it," Jones told cops Dec. 13, according to the court papers.

We're somewhat unclear on this "not guilty" strategy.

Send an email to the author of this post at Hamilton@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkoz2

Amplify’d from gawker.com

School Shooter's Last Facebook Update: 'Ur Gonna Here About the Evil I Did'

Robert Butler Jr., son of a police detective, shot the principal and assistant principal at his school in Omaha, Nebraska before killing himself. His last Facebook status update was a chilling indictment of the school he'd just transferred to.

According to ABC News, it read:

Everybody that used to know me I'm sry but Omaha changed me and (expletive) me up. and the school I attend is even worse ur gonna here about the evil (expletive) I did but that (expletive) school drove me to this. I wont u guys to remember me for who I was b4 this ik. I greatly affected the lives of the families ruined but I'm sorry. goodbye.

No other students at Millard High School were injured; the assistant principal is in critical condition and the principal is in stable but serious condition.

[Image via AP]

Send an email to Adrian Chen, the author of this post, at adrian@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkoyv

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Spilled Coffee Brings Down Airliner

A United Airlines pilot's coffee accident forced the emergency landing of a Boeing 777 when communications and navigation systems malfunctioned. Luckily all 241 passengers were fine, though it took them an extra day to get to Europe.

The flight from Chicago to Germany declared an emergency and landed in Toronto rather than attempt an Atlantic crossing with screwy, wet equipment. Passengers were flown back to Chicago, lodged, and then sent on to Frankfurt. According to the Aviation Herald, the crew initially reported the radio problems as due to "unlawful interference," which is as good a description as any of what United Airlines does to coffee beans.

[Photo of United Boeing 777 by BriYYZ/Flickr]

Send an email to Ryan Tate, the author of this post, at ryan@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkoya

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Murdered Bush Official Tried to Burn Neighbor's House Down?

John Wheeler, the defense contractor who served in three Republican presidential administrations and was found dead in a landfill on New Year's Eve, was acting crazy before his death — and may have tried to burn his neighbor's house down.

Newark, Delaware police have ruled his death a homicide, but still have no idea of what really happened. He was on an Amtrak train last Tuesday. On Wednesday he showed up at a New Castle pharmacy, and things went from there:

"He said, ‘Can you give me a ride to Wilmington?' and that was a flag," a pharmacist told the News Journal. "He looked like he was a little upset." Less than an hour after leaving the drug store, Wheeler was at the New Castle County Courthouse parking garage in Wilmington, searching for his car "erratically," employees at the garage said. One worker said that Wheeler was carrying his right shoe in his left hand and claimed someone had stolen his briefcase. His car was later found a few blocks away at another parking garage where authorities say Wheeler was a monthly customer.

On Thursday, he was seen in Wilmington two blocks from the office of a lawyer who'd been representing him in a property dispute with a neighbor. Speaking of that neighbor...

Incendiary devices were found at the home of the neighbor with whom Wheeler had been entangled in a property dispute at the time of his death and a law enforcement source said investigators believe Wheeler may have set them, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

On Friday, he was found dead in a landfill. You figure it out!

Image via AP/Newark, Del. police department

Send an email to Jim Newell, the author of this post, at newell@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bkox9