Segacs’s World I Know

No disrespect intended here, but isn’t idol worship prohibited by Christianity?

A Ten Commandments monument at the center of a bitter dispute over the constitutional separation of church and state was removed from public view on Wednesday in Alabama’s state judicial building.

[ . . . ]

Some protesters were distraught over the removal of the monument. One protester screamed “Put it back, put it back” as others in front of the judicial building tried to calm him down.

I mean, it’s a monument. It’s a piece of granite. And while I believe that separation of church and state means that it has no place in a judicial building, normally I can see the other side of the argument too. But in this case, it’s people worshipping a big rock. That’s their right, of course, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it went against their religion too.

Big comeback win for the Expos tonight. And I like to think it’s all because of my presence 🙂

Actually, I’ve always been more of a hockey fan, and I tend to roll my eyes at the Expos’ woes and just figure that it’s time for the team to move on already. But this season I’ve been to two games, and I actually had a great time watching the Expos pummel the Phillies each time.

Maybe it’s because the fans seem more grassroots, as opposed to the Habs’ fans who need a big screen to tell them when to start the wave or make noise. Maybe it’s because both games were close, exciting winners. Or maybe I’m just a baseball fan in denial.

Either way, Go Expos!

The latest from the Pierre Bourque twisted logic file: stall tactics on the demerger issue:

Bourque announced his Vision Montreal party is asking the provincial Liberal government to delay demerger votes until the next Montreal municipal election, scheduled for November 2005, because it would be “anti-democratic” to start the demerger process before the city council can complete its term.

“It would invalidate the 2001 election. … It’s against our tradition to not respect the vote,” said Bourque, the opposition leader at city hall, as he unveiled a brief he will present at National Assembly hearings next month.

More like it would “invalidate” Bourque’s attempt to get back into power before the demerger would go through. Funny how he’s suddenly all up in arms about something being “anti-democratic”, isn’t it?

If only the student union at Concordia spent more time focusing on issues like this and less on petty squabbles about the Mideast . . .

Martin Wasserman writes that Israel has been in denial about the nature of this war (via Israpundit). He claims that:

Israel’s goal must not be peace, but victory, because without victory there can never be peace.

So far, so good. But then he goes on to say that:

The Palestinians and their supporters seek a war of annihilation against us. We must deal with them as they deal with us. We must stop trying to differentiate between good and bad Palestinians, just as they don’t make that distinction among Jews.

I couldn’t disagree more.

Because you see, that’s letting them win. That’s letting those who preach hatred and intolerance and racism vanquish those who would seek peace.

There’s no way out of this mess by simply trying to destroy the terrorist evil. Destroy it, yes. By all means. But the effort must be two-pronged. There needs to be a simultaneous development of a new movement on the Palestinian side – a peace movement. You simply can’t trap three and a half million people in a lousy situation and not present them with a way out – your way out. Because they’ll simply gravitate towards the way out that is the worst possible way for you.

Wasserman claims that we must stop saying that the Arabs want to live in peace, because each terrorist bombing proves that they don’t. And I agree with him that the current Palestinian leadership is corrupt and supporting terrorism, the terrorist groups are gaining popularity, and Israel’s in for a big mess. The percentages of Palestinians who support suicide bombings, who think the intifada should continue, and who don’t see an option of ever living in peace with Israel are far too high. They hate us. They hate not just Israelis, but Jews. And there is no excuse for terror, and the world is in serious denial about the so-called “root causes” of Palestinian terrorism. Israel is fighting a war and the ultimate aim of war must be victory. On these points, no disagreement from me.

But the aim of victory must be peace. It may not be right or fair that Israel has to concern itself with the aftermath of smashing the infrastructures of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. But it’s certainly in Israel’s best interest to be concerned. We must continue to make individual distinctions, even if they won’t. We must continue to reach out our hands to anyone brave enough to speak out for peace, in hopes that these tiny seedling movements will grow. We have to encourage the emergence of another way out for the Palestinians. We mustn’t become like them – those who would kill all hope – because that lets them win.

More on the so-called “right of return” from Efraim Karsh, who calls it a euphemism for annihilation:

While for most Western observers the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967, for Palestinians and Arabs the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations,” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. Hence the “right of return” is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation” – that is, the establishment of the State of Israel itself.

There has been no objective more transparent than the Palestinian leadership’s goal of eradicating Israel. Whether through wars, terrorism, the “right of return”, or any other ploy, this objective has been stated loudly and clearly for everyone to hear.

So then why is the world so stubbornly blind to it? Maybe because we want to believe that a peaceful two-state solution is not only possible, but imminent? Maybe because from our perspective, we would give up territory for peace, so we expect their side to do the same?

Mark Steyn on the UN bombing in Baghdad:

At the moment, there’s only one hyperpower (the United States), one great power (the United Kingdom) and one regional power (Australia) that are serious about the threat of Islamist terrorism. There’s also Israel, of course, but Israel’s disinclination to have its bus passengers blown to smithereens is seen as evidence of its ”obstinacy” and unwillingness to get the ”peace process” back ”on track.” What a difference it would make if one or two other G-7 nations were to get serious about the battle and be a reliable vote in international councils. But who? France? It’s all business to them, unless al-Qaida are careless enough to blow up the Eiffel Tower. Canada? Canadians get blown up in Bali, murdered in Iran, tortured in Saudi Arabia, die in the rubble of the UN building in Baghdad–and their government shrugs. Belgium? They’d rather issue a warrant for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld than Chemical Ali.

Yeah, read the whole thing.

France claims: “No proof” that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terror groups:

France voices objections to placing Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the European Union’s list of terror organizations, ynet reported Monday.

Diplomatic advisor to President Chirac, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, is quoted to have said to the Israeli ambassador in France, Nissim Zvilli, that there is no proof that these two organizations are terror groups. “If we find that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are indeed terror groups opposed to peace, we may have to change the EU’s stand,” said Gourdault-Montagne. “However, we mustn’t limit ourselves to one, clear cut, position.”

Let’s recap, shall we? Hundreds of suicide attacks launched by these groups. Thousands of innocent civilians murdered by them in cold blood. The first line of their charters stating an unequivocal opposition to peace.

“No proof”??? What on earth more could France possibly need?

There have been two bombings in Mumbai, India. At least 46 are dead and over 100 injured:

One of the blasts occurred near the colonial-era Gateway to India monument — a famous landmark and popular tourist attraction — during lunch-hour.

Another blast struck in or close to one of the city’s main Hindu temples.

The explosive devices were inside the trunks of two taxis, police said.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the blasts, which occurred during the busy lunch time period, but police say they suspect militant Islamic groups who have been blamed in the past for several bomb attacks in Mumbai.

The reaction of the news media seems to be less shock than tiredness, with the whole religious conflict that has cost far too many lives already and threatens to cost many more. The latest flare-up seems to be the release of an archaeological report about a Muslim mosque site that Hindus claim used to hold a Hindu temple. But this is yet another chapter in the seemingly endless saga.

And of course, if it’s not the Middle East, then it doesn’t get front page attention. Maybe it takes an incident like this for the world to notice. Cold comfort to the families of the killed and injured.