The Karl Show
My friend Kirk
is back from San Diego, so I intvited him over for a few hours tonight and we watched a pretty interesting movie.
Kirk said that it was a good commentary on the Cold War and arms races in general. Gentlemen, we have a Mine Shaft gap!!!
I was fooling around with my photoshop program today, when I had a disturbing thought: "What if God plays Nintendo?"
Not the Game Cube of course, but classic Nintendo. I mean, if you were God, wouldnt you play all the cool games from way back then? I would.
Of course, the "bright light" you see when you die would be a little different.
Scientist Sees Space Elevator in 15 Years
Wow. Of course, one must remember that "scientists" have been wrong before about what to expect from the future. Still, it would be pretty cool to take a 30 minute elevator ride into Low Orbit. For one thing, it will drastically reduce the cost of putting payload into orbit - which means more trips to the Moon and beyond. It might even hearald the
opening of a "Gold Rush" on the moon or something. Colonists rushing to escape the oppressive governments of Earth slip away to the Moon to start a new life. Just imagine the Wild West but with space suits.
Count me in!
Mom decided to let me tag along on her trip to The Mall. She went to Victoria’s Secret
while I went to Waldenbooks. Whenever I visit a book store – any book store – I usually spend most of my time in the Literature section. That’s Literature with a capital “L”. Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hugo. Those guys. You know, the ones who wrote all the Important Stories that everybody is supposed to read.
So I walked into Waldenbooks and made a bee-line for the Lit section, only to find it missing. I looked one aisle ahead, and one aisle behind. It’s not there. I walk up to the cashier.
“Excuse me,” I say, putting on my bamboozled customer face, “I can’t seem to find your Literature section.”
“Oh yeah,” she says, putting on her sympathetic employee face, “It’s gone now. We replaced it with our new Christian Fiction section.”
Then, quite suddenly, a part of me died on the inside.
I walked over to the New Christian Fiction section to see what wondrous monstrosities would soon be foisted upon us – the reading public. As far as I can tell, the Christian Fiction section consists primarily of:
1) Left Behind
2) Left Behind Spin-offs
3) Christian Romance Novels
4) Christian Mystery Novels
These four categories take up two aisles of floor space. TWO AISLES. I looked – believe me, I looked – for one SINGLE book by .C.S Lewis or Stephen Lawhead. I couldn’t find a single copy. Tolkien, maybe? Nope. Bunyan? Absent. Chesterton? Not a chance.
No, those great works were replaced by “Jerry Jenkens Latest End-Times Thriller!” or “A Chaste Affair: The Christian Guy next door!”
Listen folks, people are going to walk up and down those aisles and come to the conclusion that we Christians are a bunch of dimwitted copycats who couldn’t come up with a new idea if our lives depended on it. Sadly, I’m afraid that they would be right.
Quite frankly, I’ll take Fiction written by Issac Asimov (an avowed atheist) over Jerry Jenkens any day of the week. I don’t agree with Asimov’s point of view, but at least I can read the Foundation
series without gagging on piles of American Evangelical hubris. And I say that as an American Evangelical.
I guess the only solution for the dearth of crap that we call “Christian Fiction” is to start writing some decent fiction myself. With God’s grace, I won’t fall into the same comfy trap that the rest of the Christian literary world has fallen into. Wish me luck, folks.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
I just found this interesting website
that details the common "logical fallacies" that people use in their everyday arguments. Some of them seem pretty common sense, but others seem to contradict themselves. I'll let you be the judge as to how accurate their descriptions are.
Can you spot any of those fallacies in arguments that you have witnessed? Can you spot any of them in arguments that I've used? Heaven forbid!
KARL GETS POLITICAL
Ryan papers contain allegations he pressured wife for public sex
(MAURA KELLY LANNAN, 6/22/04, Associated Press)
Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan pressured his wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan
, to have sex in clubs while others watched, she charged in custody documents related to their divorce that were released Monday.
Jeri Lynn Ryan charged during a custody hearing that Ryan took her on surprise trips to New Orleans, New York and Paris in 1998, and that he insisted she go to sex clubs with him on each trip.
She said that after going out to dinner with Ryan in New York, he demanded that she go to a club with him.
``It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling,'' she said.
She said Ryan asked her to perform a sexual act while others watched, and she refused.
She said they left and Ryan apologized to her and said it was out of his system. But then, she said, he took her to Paris and again took her to a sex club.
She said she cried and became physically ill at the club, and her husband got angry with her.
She said she could never get over that incident.
"I believe in God,"
[Ryan] says. "The order of priorities is no revelation here: God, family, country. That's how I try to think about my life, in that order."
I didn’t post this article to rag on Mr. Ryan. Believe me, I know what it’s like to have lustful urges – so I can sympathize with his position. However, I do want this to serve as an example of the complete mockery that we Christians have made marriage in this country. We divorce our God-given spouses while claiming that “God and Family” are the highest priority in our lives. Then we have the audacity to claim that homosexuals are the real threat to The American Family.
Just for the record, I’m against so-called “gay marriage”, but now, as always, the greatest enemies of the Christian Church are Christians themselves.
FAMILY DYNAMICS, PT. 2
I woke up late again today from a long nap. I heard the garage door open below me - the sound of the garage door always hearalds the arrival of my family from some outing. I live in the room right above the garage, you see.
Today was no ordinary day, too. It was my mother's birthday. She turned 40 today.
My family got out of the SUV and tarried around outside to enjoy what remained of the evening. I was wondering where they went, so I got dressed and went outside to meet them.
I walked up to my mom and popped the question.
"Where did you guys go?" I asked
"Oh," my mom replied, non-chalantly, "we had my birthday party at La Morinitas".
That small screaming sound you hear is a little part of me dying on the inside.
"Uh," I stammered, "Why didnt you take ME?"
"Well," Mom said half-heartedly, "You were asleep."
"Why didnt you wake me up?" I demanded.
"Ha!", she laughed, "I'm not crawling up those stairs to wake you up every time we go somewhere."
"But it was YOUR BIRTHDAY PARTY!" I said, exasperated
"You and I already had lunch together today, remember? At Chilis?" she responded.
"Yeah, but, I missed YOUR BIRTHDAY PARTY..." I stammered
"..because you were in your room," she finished my sentence, "and that's not my fault."
"Apparently, I missed Abigale's Baptism for the same reason." I said, scowling
"That's right." Mom said, as she turned to walk away.
Now, Don't get me wrong, folks. I love my parents, especially my mom. I love her dearly. It just hurts on the inside to be around them, sometimes. Especially when they tell you that you're not worth a walk up the stairs. Especially when your presence at her 40th birthday party isnt worth a knock on your door.
On a related note, I also wasin't invited to sign her birthday card. My dad didnt even ask me to sign.
I love my parents, and they love me, in their own way. But my God, sometimes it hurts.
CHECK OUT THE NEW THREADS
Behold the new .U.S Army uniform:
The Pentagon expects this uniform to enter service around 2007. Quite frankly, I'm glad that our Military Leaders have finally decided to make our uniforms look futuristic. It's about time that somebody realized that we're living in the 21st century. Of course, I'm still waiting for interstellar travel...
...and be amazed.
BORN OF WATER
I woke up today around noon and went downstairs for some water. It’s not unusual for me to wake up so late, especially since I don’t have school for a few months. I kinda like sleeping in, but sometimes it stinks because you feel like you’ve already missed half the day. Case in point: walking downstairs for some water, I noticed that I was alone in our house. I figured maybe everybody went to the beach or something.
I found grandma sitting in her bedroom downstairs, watching her usual soap operas (or her “stories” as she likes to call them).
“Where is everybody, grandma?” I asked
“Oh, they took your little sister to get Baptized today.” She said.
Whoa. Talk about “missing the bus”.
My parents came home a few hours later. I asked mom why she didn’t wake me up so I could go and witness my sister’s Baptism.
“Oh,” my mom said, “I guess we just forgot about you. Sorry.”
Thanks, mom. I’ll send you the bill for my next therapy session.
In the meantime, I’m happy that my little sister has formalized her dedication to the Church. Even though the rest of my family attends a Calvary Chapel
, my sister was baptized into the Holy Christian Church, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I look forward to the day when I can claim the same for myself.
I went over Kevin's house yesterday for a friendly and yet somehow cutthroat game of Catan
. Kevin and I always have fun playing Catan. This time Kevin only won by a single point, so if this trend contniues, eventually I will beat him and rule Catan with an iron fist. Beware, Kevin.
Afterwards we drove over to Wellington Station
for some food. Apparently, one of Kevin's friends was playing the live music that night, and he was really desperate for everybody to buy his CD. I dont blame him. If I earned my living by playing songs from the 80's for a pub in Turlock, I'd want people to buy my CD too.
Ironically, it was "college night" at the pub, but Kevin and I were the only people there under the age of 40. Well, Kevin, myself and his talented friend anyway. Maybe because school is out, or maybe because college kids dont wanna pay five bucks for a glass of Bass
. Also, Kevin and I could barely hear each other over the INCREDIBLY LOUD CACAPHONY. Maybe college kids actually like hearing their friends when they speak.
Expensive ale and deafening volume aside, I'd say that it was pretty good. Most importantly of all, Kevin and I had fun. Without fun to brighten our days, life would be one lonely trip to the pub after another. And that's no fun at all.
OH. MY. GOD.
Generally speaking, I am a supporter of our current President and a supporter of our war in the Middle East. Generally speaking, of course.
However, today I came across an article on the Wall Street Journal that shook my faith in this President, in this war, and even in America itself to my very core. I'm going to post the entire article verbatim so that you can read it for yourself. I'll highlight the most important areas - but quite frankly - if even parts of this article are true, then President Bush (or at least Sec. Rumsfeld) should be brought up for impeachment. And I say that as a Republican
. Also note that the Wall Street Journal is not exactly a left-wing newspaper.
Here it is:
Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture
Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued
by Jess Bravin
Monday, June 7, 2004
Wall Street Journal
Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners.
The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities.
In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013.
The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply.
The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued.
Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."
According to Bush administration officials, the report was compiled by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker headed the group, which comprised top civilian and uniformed lawyers from each military branch and consulted with the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President Bush has ever seen the report.
A Pentagon official said some military lawyers involved objected to some of the proposed interrogation methods as "different than what our people had been trained to do under the Geneva Conventions," but those lawyers ultimately signed on to the final report in April 2003, shortly after the war in Iraq began. The Journal hasn't seen the full final report, but people familiar with it say there were few substantial changes in legal analysis between the draft and final versions.
A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said.
Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were saying President Bush could claim.
The Pentagon disclosed last month that the working group had been assembled to review interrogation policies after intelligence officials in Guantanamo reported frustration in extracting information from prisoners. At a news conference last week, Gen. James T. Hill, who oversees the offshore prison at Guantanamo as head of the U.S. Southern Command, said the working group sought to identify "what is legal and consistent with not only Geneva [but] ... what is right for our soldiers." He said Guantanamo is "a professional, humane detention and interrogation operation ... bounded by law and guided by the American spirit."
Gen. Hill said Mr. Rumsfeld gave him the final set of approved interrogation techniques on April 16, 2003. Four of the methods require the defense secretary's approval, he said, and those methods had been used on two prisoners. He said interrogators had stopped short of using all the methods lawyers had approved. It remains unclear what actions U.S. officials took as a result of the legal advice.
Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?"
Following scattered reports last year of harsh interrogation techniques used by the U.S. overseas, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice asking for clarification. The response came in June 2003 from Mr. Haynes, who wrote that the U.S. was obliged to conduct interrogations "consistent with" the 1994 international Convention Against Torture and the federal Torture Statute enacted to implement the convention outside the U.S.
The U.S. "does not permit, tolerate or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances," Mr. Haynes wrote. The U.S. also followed its legal duty, required by the torture convention, "to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture," he wrote.
The U.S. position is that domestic criminal laws and the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments already met the Convention Against Torture's requirements within U.S. territory.
The Convention Against Torture was proposed in 1984 by the United Nations General Assembly and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," and that orders from superiors "may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
That prohibition was reaffirmed after the Sept. 11 attacks by the U.N. panel that oversees the treaty, the Committee Against Torture, and the March 2003 report acknowledged that "other nations and international bodies may take a more restrictive view" of permissible interrogation methods than did the Bush administration.
The report then offers a series of legal justifications for limiting or disregarding antitorture laws and proposed legal defenses that government officials could use if they were accused of torture.
A military official who helped prepare the report said it came after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not."
The official said, "People were trying like hell how to ratchet up the pressure," and used techniques that ranged from drawing on prisoners' bodies and placing women's underwear on prisoners heads -- a practice that later reappeared in the Abu Ghraib prison -- to telling subjects, "I'm on the line with somebody in Yemen and he's in a room with your family and a grenade that's going to pop unless you talk."
Senior officers at Guantanamo requested a "rethinking of the whole approach to defending your country when you have an enemy that does not follow the rules," the official said.
Rather than license torture, this official said that the report helped rein in more "assertive" approaches.
Methods now used at Guantanamo include limiting prisoners' food, denying them clothing, subjecting them to body-cavity searches, depriving them of sleep for as much as 96 hours and shackling them in so-called stress positions, a military-intelligence official said. Although the interrogators consider the methods to be humiliating and unpleasant, they don't view them as torture, the official said.
The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere.
It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute, which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment if the victim dies.
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the report asserted.
(The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."
The lawyers concluded that the Torture Statute applied to Afghanistan but not Guantanamo, because the latter lies within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States" when applying a law that regulates only government conduct abroad.
Administration lawyers also concluded that the Alien Tort Claims Act, a 1789 statute that allows noncitizens to sue in U.S. courts for violations of international law, couldn't be invoked against the U.S. government unless it consents, and that the 1992 Torture Victims Protection Act allowed suits only against foreign officials for torture or "extrajudicial killing" and "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. agents acting under the color of law."
The Bush administration has argued before the Supreme Court that foreigners held at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights and can't challenge their detention in court. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on that question by month's end.
For Afghanistan and other foreign locations where the Torture Statute applies, the March 2003 report offers a narrow definition of torture and then lays out defenses that government officials could use should they be charged with committing torture, such as mistakenly relying in good faith on the advice of lawyers or experts that their actions were permissible. "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a torture charge, the report advised.
"The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture," the report advises. Such suffering must be "severe," the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest it "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."
The law says torture can be caused by administering or threatening to administer "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the sense of personality." The Bush lawyers advised, though, that it "does not preclude any and all use of drugs" and "disruption of the senses or personality alone is insufficient" to be illegal. For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods, the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him," the lawyers found.
Gen. Hill said last week that the military didn't use injections or chemicals on prisoners.
After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful." Foremost, the lawyers rely on the "commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised.
Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
The report advised that government officials could argue that "necessity" justified the use of torture. "Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law," the lawyers wrote, citing a standard legal text, "Substantive Criminal Law" by Wayne LaFave and Austin W. Scott. "In particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing of one person ... so long as the harm avoided is greater."
In addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S.
The self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that "if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."
Mr. LaFave, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said he was unaware that the Pentagon used his textbook in preparing its legal analysis. He agreed, however, that in some cases necessity could be a defense to torture charges. "Here's a guy who knows with certainty where there's a bomb that will blow New York City to smithereens. Should we torture him? Seems to me that's an easy one," Mr. LaFave said. But he said necessity couldn't be a blanket justification for torturing prisoners because of a general fear that "the nation is in danger."
For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."
The report seemed "designed to find the legal loopholes that will permit the use of torture against detainees,"
said Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international-law professor at the Ohio State University who has seen the report. "CIA operatives will think they are covered because they are not going to face liability."
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc
My God. What have we become?
Thank you for your service, Mr. President. We salute you.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST IS RATED "R" FOR REFRENCES TO "BRASIERS", FLAVORED PROPHOLACTICS, CIRCUMCISION AND CAT STEPHENS. VIEWER DISCRETION IS MANDATORY.
Sometimes at night, I sit alone in my room, quietly staring out my window while pondering the great questions of our age. Is there a God? If so, does He truly love us? What happens to us after we die? Is it permissible to listen to any kind of music whatsoever? Thankfully, the good people at Ask-Imam.com
have provided the answers needed for an upright and completely music-free life. Here are some questions that have been bugging me lately, along with the completely logical and fully Islamic answers. (My comments in red).
Q: how can just talking to someone of the opposite sex be regarded as adultery?
A: If there is no need to talk to the opposite gender who are non-Mahrams (not prohibited in marriage), then that is a sin. Shari’ah strongly advocates separation and segregation of sexes. The evils of intermingling of sexes and free communication between them are well known. In brief, it is death to a pure and clean heart and mind. It is death to spirituality.
I couldnt agree more. I tell ya, this country started going down hill once we started allowing "free communication" between the sexes back in the 50's.
Q: Is it a big sin to listen to rap music that has a few curse words?
A: Music is expressly prohibited in many Ahaadith. Among the dominant purposes of our beloved Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) was to destroy musical
QUICK! SOMEBODY TELL CAT STEPHENS!
Q: Can we tell a lie if needed at any situation?
A: It is only permissible for a person to lie for good causes, for example, ...to [lie] an enemy of Islam in order to trick him.
Thank goodness that we Americans arent enemies of Islam. Otherwise, they might start lying to us or something.
Q: Is there a prohibition against whistling with one’s mouth or by using a whistle?
A: It is not permissible to whistle through one’s mouth or an instrument. However, if there is a dire need, for example, to call out at a distant person or a lost person and there is no alternative, then one will be excused.
I don't think I've ever "whistled through an instrument", but I'll keep this in mind anyway.
Q: Can i marry my uncle's (my father's brother) daughter?
A: It is permissible to marry one's cousin - uncle's daughter.
I sense that Islam will soon be making a huge revival in Arkansas.
Q: What is the area to be circumcised for females?
A: NOWHERE! Female circiumcision is a painful, barbaric act that should be outlawed.
(Ha ha! Just kidding! Here's what the Imam really said):
Circumcision is Sunnat for men and an honour for women. The area which should be circumcised for females is the skin which is just above the place where the male would enter his private part.
I mean, really. Women don't need those private parts anyway.
Q: Is it permissible in Islam for women to wear Brasire
A: We do not know what you mean by brasire.
And finally, just in case you think I am making these questions up, here is a link to our lucky winner. The 64,000 dollar question is:
Q: I would like to know, is it allowed for a wife to suck her husbands private parts if he is wearing a flavoured condom?
A: It is permissible as long as it does not constitute oral sex.
WE HAVE A WINNER! I like the answer too. It's very nuanced.
Let me make it clear that I'm not picking on Muslims or anything. I'm sure that if somebody could find "Ask-a-priest.com", they would come across some pretty nutty questions and some equally funky answers.
So until next time, friends! Stay away from flavoured condoms and music of all kinds! Goodnight!!!
KISS ME, IM A LOOSER!
Yeah, I'm a looser. A bum. A ner-do-well. But you know what? God can still acomplish things through bums like me. I really do believe that.
In other news, I just got back from Borders. I've finally spent the last of my birthday money there. Picked up The City of God
by St. Augustine. It's been on my "must read" list for a while now, even though I literally have about three dozen books that I havent read yet. You might say that I'm a compulsive book-buyer. You might be right.
Now go from this Blog in grace and peace, and pray for me, a sinner.
IN ALL THE WORLD THY GLORIES...
I apologise for my tardyness lately. I usually try to get at least one post per day, but Ive been slacking off lately (in more ways than one).
In the meantime, I leave you with this song. This may very well be the oldest song in the Church (or possibly the oldest song that is still sung), but it still gives me goosebumps when I hear it. It's even more profound to consider that the early Christians would sing this while lighting a candle in the empty tomb of Christ. Enjoy.
Hail, gladdening Light, of his pure glory poured,
who is immortal Father, heavenly blest;
Holiest of Holies, Jesus Christ our Lord!
Now are we come to the sun's hour of rest;
the lights of evening round us shine,
we hymn the Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine.
Worthiest art thou at all times to be sung,
with undefilèd tongue,
Son of our God, Giver of life, alone!
Therefore in all the world thy glories, Lord, they own.