2 of 11

Actually, he identified him as the son of Miriam, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a Tuesday decision. And that's not the only point the appeals court corrected the immigration judge on. The immigration judge "appears to have erroneously viewed Rizal's lack of detailed doctrinal knowledge about Christianity as automatically rendering incredible his claim of religious persecution, without assessing the genuineness of Rizal's asserted Christian self-identification and his claim that others perceived him as a Christian and had persecuted him on that basis," Judge Robert Katzmann wrote for the court. Doctrinal knowledge isn't a prerequisite for persecution, the court said, so it shouldn't be a prerequisite for asylum. "Both history and common sense make amply clear that people can identify with a certain religion, notwithstanding their lack of detailed knowledge about that religion's doctrinal tenets, and that those same people can be persecuted for their religious affiliation. Such individuals are just as eligible for asylum on religious persecution grounds as are those with more detailed doctrinal knowledge." The appeals court ordered the lower immigration courts to reconsider the asylum case. Rizal's lawyer notes that the Indonesian may be able to stay in the country a lot longer than earlier thought: Over the course of the appeals process, he married an American. An Associated Press story ends with a nice touch: "The pair … met at church."

3. Abdul Rahman "crazy" for converting?
Almost every western nation is calling for the freedom of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity who faces the death penalty for doing so. At the same time, Afghan clerics are threatening revolt and murder if the Afghan court does not execute him. Is there any way out? Prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari thinks there might be: Rahman, he said, seems crazy. "We think he could be mad," he told the Associated Press. "He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person." Freeing Rahman on grounds of insanity would probably mean he would be killed by local Muslims. The Associated Press reports that local imams aren't buying the craziness excuse. Abdull Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games," said Abdul Raoulf. "The people will not be fooled. Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." The Associated Press identified Raoulf as a "moderate."

4. St. Paul City Hall evicts Easter Bunny
Tyrone Terrill, human rights director for the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, told the city council to remove its bunny, Easter eggs, and "Happy Easter" sign because they were too Christian and a violation of church-state separation. The worst part of the story isn't the government's confusion between pagan symbols and Christianity. It's that Weblog's e-mail inbox is now going to be crammed with press releases from activist groups decrying the "War on Easter." I'm still cleaning out the "War on Christmas" stuff.

5. Speaking of the war …
Oh, it's not just a war on Christian holidays, you know. It's a war on Christians. That's the title of a conference next week from the group Vision America. It's attracting a surprising array of both conservative activists and congressional leaders, including John Cornyn, Tom DeLay, Todd Akin, and Sam Brownback. Each day brings a new interesting e-mail from Vision America promoting the conference. Today's equates the trial of Abdul Rahman with Hollywood's "war on Christians" as evidenced by the universally panned movie V for Vendetta, which Vision America says has "a strong anti-Christian message." Maybe so, but, um, does Vision America know that the Rahman trial isn't just a movie? It's interesting that what the church has for nearly two millennia considered persecution and martyrdom is now being considered "war." An awful lot of implications there, don't you think?

next page... |  2 of 11

share this page

March (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50