Only, of course, it won’t be called an act of terrorism because the victims were Muslim, and the perpetrators were conservative white Americans. They sprayed gas into a mosque filled with kids.

On Friday, September 26, the end of a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West — the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail — were distributed by mail in Ohio, a “chemical irritant” was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain’s supporters has led to — Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.

Common decency would suggest that babies should not be targeted. These are people who lack decency, I’m afraid.

You’ve probably already heard this one, since it is all over the news: a preacher, Anthony Hopkins, murdered his wife after she caught him sexually abusing their children and stuffed her in a freezer — with the daughter’s assistance. This happened four years ago and the children’s mother has been kept in the freezer in this house ever since. The pastor of Hopkins church reports that “the children were so respectful, just so easygoing”, and that they “loved their dad. They were very close to him.” Right. Rape, murder, and incest are just ordinary events in the Abrahamic family tree.

What I find disturbing about the whole story is this. Anthony Hopkins spent all this time since as an itinerant preacher, traveling about and preaching the ‘Holy Word of Jesus Christ’. His daughter moved out of his house, finally, reported what he’d done to the police, the police went into his house and opened the freezer, and then they went off to the church where he was preaching that day. What did they do then?

Police allowed Hopkins to finish his sermon before arresting him.

Wait, what? Was this an example of Christians showing respect, that they allowed a child-raping murderer continue mouthing words of love and redemption in their church, words that clearly meant nothing to this monstrous psychopath? If only he’d crumbled a cracker, perhaps then they would have been less tolerant.

People keep writing to me about this wretched scumbag who shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee, killing two people there to watch a children’s play. I don’t know what happened, but despite it happening in a church, I don’t get the impression that it’s a consequence of a conflict between Christians and an atheist. It was a Unitarian church, full of secular humanists and deists and non-specific theists, not exactly a prime target for a psychotic atheist. More likely issues are that the place had a sign out front saying “Gays welcome”, that he was a Confederate South sympathizer, that he was insane, and that he “was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job and hatred for the liberal movement.” At least, that’s the word that has leaked out of a long note he left behind.

So until we know more specifics, it sounds to me like this is the work of a far right-wing nut who targeted a particular church not because it was religious, but because this is the kind of church where you’ll find the highest concentration of bleeding heart liberals. We’ll have to wait until more details are made available, though, to know for sure.

New reports: “He disliked blacks, gays, anyone who was a different color or just different from him”, and his ex-wife was a member of the church he targeted. There’s a whole bunch of crazy motives behind these actions, I suspect.

Christopher Hitchens’ views on war in the Middle East often infuriate me, even while I greatly enjoyed his views on religion. My respect for him goes up, though, because he has done something I wouldn’t: to determine whether it really was torture, he had himself waterboarded by the US military (and if you relish the thought of watching Hitchens actually being tortured, it was recorded on video).

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning–or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and–as you might expect–inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

The answer is clear.

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

It is a dreadful act to perform on the subject, and it degrades those who do it. I’m ashamed to admit that I would like to see all of the proponents of torture in this awful war subjected to this treatment; it is by an act of conscience that we have to say it must not be allowed to happen to anyone.

(via Cycle Ninja)

I wondered, incorrectly, if Leila Hussein was a reluctant accomplice in the death of her daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, the young girl who was murdered by her monstrous father for speaking to a British soldier. Now I feel particularly awful about that; Leila Hussein was devastated by the killing, condemned the act, and left her contemptible husband at grave personal risk.

Leila Hussein has been murdered, gunned down as she tried to escape Iraq.

It was two weeks after Rand’s death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: ‘No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.’

Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against ‘honour’ killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats – notes calling her a ‘prostitute’ and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.

This is an instance of unimaginable fear, hatred, and tragedy…and it’s just one example of a climate and pattern of oppression of women. It’s a story that’s hard to read through the tears.