A feminist in support of Franklin Graham and against Islam

I am not fond of most feminists. I am all for equal pay, promotion, opportunity and for there to be no discrimination based on gender. My problem is with the radical feminazis who have ruined the movement with excessive political correctness and stupidity. Enter Danielle Avel, an avowed gay feminist. She came out in support of Franklin Graham. Part of her support for Graham is his stand and words about Islam. Clearly this is one feminist that sees the forest for the trees in regard to Islam and the way this perverse ideology persecutes and subjects women to a horrible life. I find Ms. Avel's words encouraging and really hope this will open more feminists eyes and minds to what Islam realy means and does to women.

---

Feminists and Franklin Graham
Danielle Avel

Big Government; Although I am a modern feminist, like most people, I stopped paying serious attention to the feminist movement right around the time the movement lost its voice to political correctness. Unfortunately, there are no promising indicators that the current feminist establishment will be regaining that voice anytime soon. The silence of the movement on critical issues gives the impression that all is well for the women of the world, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Last week, Evangelical Rev. Franklin Graham was disinvited from the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon because of his remarks about Islam which included, “When you look at what the religion [Islam] does to women and women alone, it is just horrid.” Due to the level of media coverage surrounding this event, it was the perfect opportunity for some feminist group to seize the moment and speak out against the atrocities committed against women every day in the name of Islam, but the establishment chose to remain silent.

Feminists certainly could have come out in support of Franklin Graham’s truthful remarks and brought attention to some simple facts, like how women who live under Shariah Law are virtual prisoners and are not allowed to leave their home unless accompanied by an appropriate male guardian. Or perhaps, start a discussion on the fact that over 90% of married women in supposedly “moderate Islamic” countries like Pakistan report being “kicked, slapped, beaten, or sexually abused” for crimes like failing to cook or clean to their husbands’ approval or for giving birth to a girl instead of a boy. Maybe it would have been a good time to mention that now even here in the United States, fathers, brothers, and sons sometimes feel they have the right to viciously attack and murder their own female relatives in order to preserve their so-called “honor.” At the very least, it would have been an appropriate moment for some feminist group to denounce the heinous practice of female genital mutilation or the stoning to death of women who are raped. What about the Islamic tradition of forcing children to “marry” adult men who then take complete control over their little bodies — control enough to rape little girls to death as we saw in Yemen just weeks ago.


Even though feminists generally remain silent about this issue, the treatment of women in Islam can be, as Franklin Graham stated, “horrid.” Critics claim that Graham is an “ignorant bigot” who is “attacking Islam” but how many of those critics have actually visited the Middle East and/or studied the Quran and Hadith? How many of them have even heard of Hadith? (Hadith are narratives about Muhammad’s life and the vast majority of Muslims consider them essential for understanding the Quran). Over the past 40 years, Franklin Graham has travelled and worked in places like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan — he has witnessed the Islamic way of life where true Islamic law is actually practiced.

Those who have studied Islamic teachings are well-aware that violence against women is not only condoned, but often encouraged as a practice to make women submissive (Quran Sura 4 Verse 34 is just one example). The concept of “marrying” children comes directly from the Prophet Muhammad whom Muslims believe is an example of the “perfect man” — he “married” his child bride, Aisha, when she was 6, but didn’t take her virginity until she reached the mature age of 9. In Western civilization, men who rape children go to prison and become outcasts of society — under Islamic law, the term “marriage” can be used to sanction these acts and men can claim to be following in the footsteps of the “perfect man.” Graham may have been blunt when he described life under Islamic law as “wicked” and “violent” but how else can one categorize atrocities like the ones listed above?

Although the feminist establishment is often silent about the plight of women in Islam, thankfully, there are still some brave individuals like Franklin Graham who will speak out for those whose voices have been stolen, beaten, raped, and stoned in the name of this misogynistic political and religious ideology. Graham may have been silenced by Islamic apologists at the Pentagon but he did not lose his public forum because he is “attacking Islam” — he lost his forum simply because he is telling the truth about Islam. Feminist groups may often choose to ignore the issue but it is time for all of us who live under the protection of Western governments to learn about the realities of the world’s fastest spreading religious/political ideology. More of us need to speak out for the women who cannot and we all need to ensure that apologists do not succeed in silencing anyone. As a gay woman in particular, I do not share many similar views with Evangelical Rev. Franklin Graham, yet I still admire him for speaking the truth about an oppression that in varying degrees affects hundreds of millions of women throughout the world. Maybe one day, the feminist establishment will be brave enough to follow in his footsteps. Now that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been given a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, feminist groups have yet another perfect opportunity to speak out — will they?

Here is the link to the original article.

So Help Us God

This will just speak for itself to many who will read this. A district judge recently 'ruled' the The National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. What Consituion was this judge reading when she made this decsiosn from the bench? Did ever read our Constituion or maybe has forgotten what it states? This is from the  Family Research Council and was written by Tony Perkins.

---

So Help Us God
Tony Perkins


Family Research Council, Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, [we] must fall with them (Jedediah Morse, 1799). Yesterday, 223 years to the day after patriots ratified an end the Revolutionary War, a judge in Wisconsin ruled to reintroduce tyranny in America--this time, from the bench. In a decision that is rocking our nation to its very core, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb determined that a national day of prayer--a tradition as old as the country itself--is unconstitutional. "...[R]ecognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it..." With all due respect, the government may do exactly that under the very documents that established it. "[The] sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records," Alexander Hamilton insisted. "They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased by mortal power."

Had Judge Crabb consulted the Constitution she was sworn to uphold, she might notice that Americans enjoy religious freedom--not by virtue of the courts, but in spite of them. Furthermore, setting aside a day of corporate prayer is more than compatible with our nation's heritage; it is a responsibility assigned to every American by George Washington himself. "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God... and humbly implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789).

Contrary to Judge Crabb's opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it. Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. To imply otherwise is to suggest that the Constitution is unconstitutional! Religion cannot be banned in America because it was never imposed--not by the Founding Fathers, and certainly not by the National Day of Prayer. While this is one of many instances in which the courts have tried to banish God from the public square, this case reveals a level of supreme arrogance. Ultimately, Judge Crabb is inferring that she found something in the Constitution that every President and Congress since 1775 has not: a hostile treatment of religion in public life.

Make no mistake. This judicial mutiny lies directly at the feet of the Left, including President Obama, who has created an atmosphere in which the Constitution is silly putty in the hands of liberal activists. Slowly but surely, he is making American soil more fertile for the radical redefinition of society. This cannot be tolerated. We must ensure that the President's bench nominees have a reverence for the Constitution that this judge lacks. In the meantime, we call on Congress to start the impeachment proceedings for Barbara Crabb, as she violated of her sacred oath of "administering justice... under the Constitution and laws of the United States." What she has done to repress, we will use to revive. What she meant to undermine prayer, we will use as the reason why it's necessary. When the great men and women of our past bent their knees to God on behalf of the "sacred fire of liberty," it was often during the nation's darkest days. My friends, it is time we join them.