Well, then, let's send him to Allah -- right now.

Sorry to disagree, but let him rot in prison and die there like every other traitor should. May bradley manning suffer the same fate.

It would have been inappropriate for them to abide by her request, just as it would have been inappropriate to abide by a request from a member of the Christian Identity Movement's request for a white to conduct the test, or for someone with religious objections to homosexuality to request a straight person to do the test. indeed, I believe that complying with the request would have violated the civil rights of the employees involved, and opened the hospital up tomuch more serious lawsuit.

Here's a better idea -- Muslims can move Ramadan so as not to disrupt the school calendar.

As I pointed out in my post this morning, there are so many locations (Hagia Sophia among them) where non-Muslims are denied access to to their holy places that have been taken by imperialist Islamic expansionism. But then again, given that Muslims have the Islamic equivalent of the Brezhnev Doctrine regarding those places brought under Islam's yoke, why should any of us be surprised by this latest act of aggression and desecration of a Christian holy place. These Muslims knew the worse they would face would be criminal charges -- and that a Christian trying this before the Kaaba would certainly not survive the ensuing murderous assault by Muslim worshipers to be able to face criminal charges.

No, Isabella -- I post just like a conservative Republican precinct chair who believes in the US Constitution and is no fan of Islam. And Isabella, it doesn't matter where the girl's idea came from -- she has an absolute right to not say the pledge or stand during it. If you don't like that fact, you are welcome to start a movement to remove the First Amendment from the Constitution so that government may compel individuals to speak words that they don't believe and which may conflict with their religion. If you do, I'll stand in opposition to you -- for you will have become as much a Nazi as the Muslims you criticize. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/298695.php

Pam, the reality is that the matter is settled law, and that it was settled nearly 70 years ago during the middle of WWII. In Wet Virginia v. Barnette, Justice Frankrurter vindicated the rights of Americans under the First Amendment to the US Constitution in this regard. The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. Now please remember, the US was in the midst of a bloody war against German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese militarism. Somehow, allowing children who were members of an unpopular and weird religious group (Jehovah's Witnesses) to opt out of the Pledge for religious reasons did not do a lick of harm to the war effort. Neither will allowing this child to do the same thing cause any harm to this nation. On the other hand, allowing teachers to illegally coerce (in violation of the Constitution, statutory law, and school policy) student participation in political speech that offends the beliefs of those students and their families will do significantly greater damage to our nation -- in particular by hollowing out the liberties protected by the Constitution. After all, what if instead of the Pledge this was a teacher disciplining a child for refusing to show respect by standing and singing "Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmm Barack Hussein Obama"? You (and I) would be screaming bloody murder! As a teacher, I think the teacher who pulled this offensive, unAmerican move should thank God (or the deity of his/her choice) that an apology is all that is being demanded, not dismissal from employment and revocation of teaching credentials. I don't believe that i would be nearly so restrained or compassionate if it were done to my kid (though I would also beat the tar out of my kid -- as a parent, I would have the right to coerce my child's participation in the Pledge).

Do other religious groups have similar accommodations in this building that is designed to house religious groups? If so, what's the problem?

Hate to break it to you, Pam, but the Muslims are in the right on this one. If a group of women did this at an orthodox synagogue, I'd expect nothing less. If a group of women tried to rush the altar and demand that the local bishop ordain them as well as the male ordinands, I'd expect nothing less. The reality is that these women were disrupting the peace and decorum of a house of worship, and they were removed by police at the request of the properly constituted authorities of that house of worship. That it happened to be an Islamic house of worship is irrelevant to the story from a legal and constitutional point of view. Islam sucks -- but freedom of religion does not.

And then there is the fact that the guy appears to meet at least three, and possibly four, of the fourteen aggravating factors that permit the death penalty under Arizona law -- and the prosecution needs only to show one in order for him to be eligible. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/298549.php

Also, it is unclear how encouraging a minor to become a Christian can be declared a crime in these United States of America. Let me clarify the point I was making. And please read to the end of my comment to make sure you fully understand my position. I don't think anyone here would dispute the right of a parent to direct the religious upbringing of his/her minor child. A parent unambiguously has a right to insist that a minor child attend religious services of the parents' faith, and to take religious instruction in that faith. A parent also has the right to forbid that minor child to attend services of another faith, and to participate in the activities of that other faith. Now let me give you a hypothetical situation. You discover that your son has been secretly attending activities at the local mosque with friends from school and is interested in becoming a Muslim. You forbid him to associate with those friends or got to the mosque. Unbeknownst to you, the imam at the mosque has been picking your kid up down the street so that he can go to services at the mosque and participate in the mosque's religious education and youth programs. He then helps your son, who now wishes to be known as Muhammad Muhammad Muhammad, run away from home and flee to another state. Are the imam's activities acceptable, as everyone in this discussion wants to presume Mr. Williams' actions to be, or has he contributed to the delinquency or unruliness of your minor child and interfered with your custody of your minor child? Should he be charged with these offenses, or should he be allowed to walk free despite having committed the elements of the offenses in question? I think the questions answer themselves -- and if they do, the same answers would apply to Brian Williams and his actions in this case as well. Of course, that is not to say that I don't admire Brian Williams and his actions -- I do. That said, I believe that Brian can be, should be, and ought to be charged with the offenses, and that he will in all likelihood be found guilty of them, at which point he can, should, and ought to be sentenced to jail time. You know, just like some guy named Paul who lived about 2000 years ago and who spent more than a little time in jail for violating the civil laws in order to abide by a higher law. And like Paul, Brian ought to serve that time with joy, as a witness to the truth of the Gospel and the willingness of a believer to suffer in order to follow Christ.

A necessity defense is one in which the defendant concedes he did the deed, but argues that it was necessary to serve a higher end. The required elements are that the person demonstrate that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid. Would it work here? That is, of course, the question. Certainly there is an argument for point (a), provided Williams could demonstrate the reasonableness of his belief. As for (b), was there another alternative besides aiding and abetting a runaway? I think he might be able to demonstrate point (c). But point (d) becomes the real issue -- after all, the prosecution could argue that his actions created the danger in the first place by converting Rifqa to Christianity as a minor and continuing to aid her in attending Christian events when her custodial parents objected to her doing so. Personally, I think that he would likely get a hung jury -- provided the judge allowed Williams to use the defense at trial.

The problem, though, is that the custodial interference charge is pretty cut and dried. However, the trial would be loads of fun, especially if one gets into the question of a necessity defense or outright jury nullification.

And just imagine the level of violence we would be seeing out of Muslims if Islam weren't the "Religion of Peace".

And once you adopt the marital practices of Muhammad you become a PERVERT.

However, we don't charge people with a crime for owning underwear just because they have literature that advocates jihad.

Congratulations!

Apparently, though, what we have here is a spent rocket launcher of the sort that you can buy online or at any number of military surplus stores. They are essentially an empty tube, no more dangerous than a used shell casing. As a kid growing up on military bases, my buddies and I had bunches of these things that our dads brought home from "the office" for us to play with. Oh, yeah -- possession of these items is completely legal -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW#Surplus_demand_and_replicas

I've got mixed emotions on this point. On the one hand, I'm not at all crazy about folks taking in runaway minors and failing to report their whereabouts to someone -- whether parents or authorities. We are, after all, talking about minors. And in such cases, you are technically interfering with the parental rights of the minor's parents. After all, how would you respond if your kid moved in with another family and they refused to notify you or return your child to you when you discovered his/her whereabouts? There are some really thorny legal questions at work here that are not at all overridden by the serious religious issues that are present in this case. On the other hand, is the better choice to leave the kid out on the streets? There are no easy answers on this case -- except to hope for jury nullification if the charges are ever brought and the case goes to a jury.

Now Pam, I'd normally side with a house of worship wanting to expand, and might even support waiving some aspects of the zoning code in order to allow that to happen. Unfortunately, what you have here is an attempt to do completely away with the zoning regulations in every single regard. That is not a variance from the regulations -- that is a wholesale re-writing of the rules that ought be permitted no property owner. And as an aside, this does remind me of an incident we had down here in Houston some years back -- and the marvelous way in which the impacted neighbor dealt with the matter. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/207144.php

And you would be truly addicted if you know the mysterious surname that "Rhymes With Right".