Magic Statistics

The usual gang of idiots Afghan Muslim clerics say outside agitators are to blame for the release of Abdul Rahman and his subsequent escape to Italy.

Afghan clerics blamed meddling foreigners on Friday for the release of a Christian convert who they said should be executed for abandoning Islam.

The convert, Abdur Rahman, was spirited out of Afghanistan to asylum in Italy on Wednesday, a day after he was released from jail following a storm of protest in the United States and other Western countries over his treatment.
. . .
[Says cleric Mohammad Sediq,] "This was only the start of such plots in Afghanistan. Lots of other converts will reveal themselves as they think they won't be followed up by the authorities.''

"Lots" of Afghan Christians will suddenly come out of hiding calling attention to themselves because one of their brothers, by an unlikely chain of circumstances that can fairly be called miraculous, managed to escape?  In your dreams, Mr Sediq.

via Jihad Watch. 

Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) has released the findings from the blind, anonymous survey mailed out to members of the ECUSA House of Bishops about a month ago.  As expected, the response rate was low: only 80 of 298 surveys were returned.  Moreover, the results cannot be considered indicative of the views of all ECUSA bishops.

LEAC tries to put a positive spin on the results, but it really can't be done.  Two press releases have been issued with content that, strangely, differs in crucial aspects.  One is posted at LEAC's website, while the other was released through PR Newswire.

The headline and opening sentence of the PR Newswire release are seriously misleading.

Episcopal Bishops, If Voting Secretly, Would Oppose Church's Stance on Homosexual Agenda Items Adopted in 2003, a Lay Poll Reports

WASHINGTON, March 31 /PRNewswire/ — Episcopal bishops in the United States, if voting secretly now, would turn away from two critical votes in 2003 which championed a pro-homosexual agenda, according to a survey by Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC).

In fact, no statements about the voting preferences of Episcopal bishops can be made on the basis of the survey.  Given that respondents effectively selected themselves into the survey sample (i.e., only those who took the initiative to respond are included), not everyone in the sample frame had an equal chance of being included in the results, and therefore the LEAC survey results are not based on a random sample.  In cases involving such self-selected samples, the respondents cannot be assumed to represent the larger population to which they belong; the results refer only to those who actually responded.  In this case, the findings are not generalisable to the entire ECUSA HoB.  (See this blog post for more discussion of self-selected samples.)

The headline and opening text of the press release at LEAC's own site are much more circumspect in this regard.

Bishops responding to LEAC survey reject key homosexual agenda items

WASHINGTON, DC (3/29/2006): LEAC's blind, confidential survey of the U.S. House of Bishops found that 56.25% of respondents now would disapprove of the 2003 General Convention resolution which led to consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, and 57.5% would oppose provisions for church blessing of same-sex domestic partnerships, another of the convention's historic resolutions.

From a statistical perspective, there is a world of difference between referring to, on the one hand, "bishops responding" and "respondents" (per the release posted at LEAC's site) and, on the other, "Episcopal bishops" in general (per the PR Newswire release).

The release posted at LEAC's site also says:

A satisfactory sample of 27% of the nation's active and retired bishops participated. Response was likely suppressed during the data collection period by a special, unfavorable letter to bishops from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. The derogatory letter said the sponsor of the research was anonymous, although the covering letter explaining the study and questionnaire was on LEAC's letterhead, with name and address. Griswold's erroneous words and unfavorable tone apparently caused reduced responses.

The survey is emphatically not "satisfactory" from a statistical perspective.  Not because it's small—public opinion pollsters commonly make statements about the voting preferences of US citizens based on samples of 1500 or less—but because, as just discussed, it is self-selected, not randomly selected, and therefore not necessarily representative of all ECUSA bishops.

As for the effect of Bp Griswold's letter criticising the survey, LEAC's contention is debatable.  In a mail-out survey, it is not unusual for responses to be returned quickly in relatively large numbers and then to taper off quickly after the initial rush.  Those who wish to respond typically do so shortly after receiving the survey form, especially if the survey is short, as in this case.  (That's not to say that LEAC is wrong, merely that the pattern of returns observed in this instance is not an uncommon experience in mail-out surveys.)

In my previous post on this survey, I suggested that LEAC would have been better off hiring a professional polling firm.  Admittedly, that would have been an expensive proposition, but the results would have been more useful.  So, I was puzzled to see this in the PR Newswire release: "The study was aided by pro-bono opinion research professionals".   Did those professionals point out to LEAC the problems with an anonymous, mail-out survey?  If not, I think they were remiss.

Even on its own terms, I don't think the LEAC survey provides much encouragement for traditionalist Episcopalians.  Eighty surveys were returned, of which 56.25% disapprove of the GC2003 decision to confirm consecration of Bp Gene Robinson, and 57.5% percent oppose providing for church blessing of same-sex domestic partnerships.  In numbers, 45 and 46 respondents, respectively, oppose the GC2003 decisions.  Those numbers, while not insignificant, would appear insufficient to change the direction of the ECUSA HoB.

Finally, I'm not up on ECUSA church governance in general, or how decisions are made at General Convention in particular, but based on this post at Blog of Daniel, changing the opinion of the House of Bishops is only part of the challenge LEAC has taken on.

LEAC links via Thinking Anglicans, where you can find links to more information about LEAC.
Blog of Daniel link via Drell's Descants.

Previous related post: Survey of ECUSA House of Bishops

Abdul Rahman’s dramatic escape from the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity has focused attention on the Christian community in Afghanistan.  Spiegel Online takes a fascinating look at life in what most Afghans regard as an illicit and subversive group.  Although the country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the hard truth is that this right simply does not exist.

Hashim Kabar (not his real name), a 36-year old Afghan Christian, says that Muslims and Christians co-existed peacefully until the Taliban came to power in the mid-1990s.  A campaign of terror and destruction aimed at rooting out Christianity was instituted, and Mr Kabar says the situation is little better even now that the Taliban has been routed.  The result is a miniscule Christian population that Mr Kabar estimates at between 1,000 and 2,000 in a country of nearly 20 million.  (Another recent estimate of 10,000 Christians “seems exaggerated”.)

The persecution and the constant danger have turned the community of Afghan converts into a closely knit underground organization. Ironically, the oppression has strengthened the faith of many.
. . .
Even though Afghanistan has dismissed its case against Abdul Rahman, this is a cold comfort for Kabar. He and his friends fear that anger among Islamists over Rahman's release could spur them to take matters into their hands and act even more brutally toward converts. "Abdul Rahman's release is a good thing," he says. "But the international community needs to keep its eyes open."

According to Kabar, the worst thing would be if the resolution of the case leaves the impression that everything is now OK for converts living in Afghanistan. If that happens, he says, the case would have done more harm than good. "We are going to stand by our faith," he adds on parting. "Any kind of support would help us a lot."

Amen to that.

Read the whole thing.

via Allahpundit guest-blogging at Michelle Malkin.

Previous related post: More Afghan Christians suffering persecution.

That makes two legal actions announced today.

Canadian Muslims have sicked the Alberta Human Rights Commission on Western Standard magazine for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.  Also today, CNN reports that Danish Muslims are suing Jyllands Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published what must be among the most notorious cartoons in the history of the world.  As was the case in Alberta, the suit was intiated after civil authorities refused to lay criminal charges.

A group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations have filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the contentious Prophet Muhammed cartoons, their lawyer said Thursday.
. . .
Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said lawsuit sought 100,000 kroner ($16,100) in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

The case against Western Standard is being undertaken at taxpayer expense, but the Danish case is apparently on the Muslims’ own dime.  Is there no Danish Human Rights Commission willing to take up the fight against the human rights of free speech and free press?

via Western Resistance.

Previous related posts:

• Western Standard sued over Mohammed cartoons
• Canadian Muslims want laws against insults
• United Church of Canada embraces abject dhimmitude

The headline on this Montreal Gazette story is a howler: “Bishops bowing to Rome, members of religious orders say”. And a good thing, too, one might think. But no.

The Canadian Religious Conference, which represents 22,000 brothers, nuns, and priests in religious orders, has criticised Canada’s Roman Catholic bishops for obeying the Vatican. Silly me: I thought Catholic bishops were supposed to obey the Vatican.

A letter to the bishops from the Canadian Religious Conference, which represents 213 Catholic religious communities across the country, asks the church to consider offering full communion to "all marginalized persons, divorced and remarried Catholics, and to homosexuals."

It also calls on the church to consider the "ordination of married men, women and elders in First Nations communities." (The elders would serve remote areas that lack priests.)

Do these folks really think the bishops are going to contravene Catholic teaching in areas subjected to repeated discussion and re-affirmation in recent decades? Are they unaware that their letter is tantamount to a call to break away from the Roman Catholic Church?

The 16-page letter recommends the Catholic Church become "a truly collegial institution where bishops may … enjoy autonomy in their dioceses, and that this autonomy be fully respected by Roman authorities."

They want the Catholic church in Canada to adopt the polity of the Episcopal Church USA. A fine role model that is: look what swell shape the ECUSA is in these days. It looks set to get turfed out of walk separately from the Anglican Communion.

The Roman Catholic primate of Canada has already responded: The CRC’s modest proposal will not fly; it will not even get up on its own little feet.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Roman Catholic primate of Canada and archbishop of Quebec City, said he will take the concerns of the conference to Rome. But, he said, the Canadian Church will never separate itself from doctrinaire Catholic teaching.

Vatican expert John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter in the United States has also dismissed the CRC’s agenda:

Allen said critics of the Church should not expect Rome to be receptive to their suggestions. "There is not going to be any discussion of women's ordination or homosexuality or embryonic stem cell research. … He [Pope Benedict XVI] does not need consultation to reach his conclusion."

All that the religious represented by the CRC’s letter have succeeded in accomplishing is calling public attention to the fact that most of them do not accept church teaching or discipline.

The full text of the letter is posted here (pdf document).

via Mere Comments.

This film looks fascinating. With its jazzy background music and clips of the craziest lunatics imaginable, the trailer takes a somewhat light-hearted approach to the “Jews rule the world” meme. Lunatic anti-Semitism, although often dangerous, is also pure cognitive dissonance. Bonkers. Whacko. Bananas.

via ¡No Pasarán!, which says the film focuses on “the people who put the ‘crack’ in ‘crackpot’”.

Syed Badauddin Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, has lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against the Western Standard magazine, and its publisher Ezra Levant, for printing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The chief prosecutor of Calgary had previously declined to lay charges after determining that no criminal laws were broken. Mr Soharwardy did not take that decision kindly: he called for Canadians laws to be changed more to his liking.

Mr Soharwardy could have launched a civil court action–but then he’d be on the hook for legal fees if he lost. Instead, he thought he’d try the AHRC. If the AHRC decides to accept a complaint and pursues legal action on behalf of the complainant, the taxpayers foot the entire bill. Whether the complaint succeeds or fails, the complainant pays nothing. So, there’s absolutely nothing to lose by filing a complaint. Clearly, the system is designed to encourage frivolous and vexatious complaints–and that’s what we have here.

Ezra Levant, on the other hand, has to appeal to his readers for legal defence support.

Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this.

But that's the point — this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media.

From Mr Levant’s letter sent to those on his e-mail list:

Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy's rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. It is truly an embarrassing document. He briefly complains that we published the Danish cartoons. But the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it - that we dared to disagree with him.

Think about that: In Soharwardy's view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too.

Soharwardy's complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy's complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him "humourless" and tell him to "lighten up". Perhaps that's hateful. But all of those e-mails were sent to him before our magazine even published the cartoons. Soharwardy isn't even pretending that this is a legitimate complaint. He's not even trying to hide that this is a nuisance suit.

The AHRC has allowed itself to used in an attempt to limit freedom of speech. Sad.

The full text of Mr Levant’s e-mail is posted here. His formal response to the AHRC is here. The must-read of them all is Mr Soharwardy’s complaint. Read it, and be astonished that the AHRC took this nonsense seriously. (All three documents are in pdf format.)

Consider a contribution to the Western Standard’s legal defence fund here.

Previous related posts:

• Canadian Muslims want laws against insults
• United Church of Canada embraces abject dhimmitude
• “Islam forbids images of Jesus”

Based on this news story, I’d definitely say that Islam encourages stupidity. (I'll get to the adultery in a moment.)

Village elders ordered a Muslim man in eastern India to leave his wife after he accidentally divorced her in his sleep, a news report said Tuesday.

Aftab Ansari uttered the Urdu word for divorce, "talaq," three times in his sleep, prompting his worried wife to discuss the matter with her friends, according to the Press Trust of India news agency.

Under Islamic law, a husband need only say "I divorce you" three times to secure a permanent end to his marriage.

Muslim leaders in the couple's village in West Bengal state found out and decreed that Ansari's unconscious utterances constituted a divorce, PTI reported.

Fortunately, Mr Ansari has more common sense–not to mention loyalty to his wife and their marriage vows–than the local village idiots elders.

But 30-year-old Ansari said he had no intention of leaving his wife of 11 years.

"I have not given talaq. When I uttered talaq three times I had taken medicines to help me sleep," he was quoted as saying in the report.

Sleep medication or no, what one says while snoozing is not under the control of one’s rational faculties.  Now here’s the adultery bit:

The religious leaders said that before remarrying, the couple would have to be apart for at least 100 days and that the wife, Sohela, would also have to spend a night with another man and then be divorced by him.

Where’s that in the Koran? Did they just make that up for a giggle? From Christ himself, however, we have teaching that calls what the elders demand adultery:

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Hence, the question that headlines this post.

PTI reported that the couple has been ostracized because of their refusal to abide by the decision of the village leaders.

Everyone else in the village follows the “leaders” in support of stupidity and adultery. This is what happens when the blind lead the blind.

via Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

UPDATE (30 Mar.): Later development from the front page of yesterday's Mumbai Mirror.

Abdul Rahman was released from jail in Afghanistan and quickly went into hiding. He has since fled to Italy. His release was condemned by protestors in Kabul and the elected representatives of the Afghan people.

Members of the Afghan parliament condemned the release of a man who denied Islam, insisting on Wednesday he should not be allowed to leave the country, as Italy appeared ready to offer him asylum.
. . .
"The release of Abdur [sic] Rahman was contrary to the existing laws of Afghanistan," Yunus Qanuni, president of the lower house of parliament, told the assembly during an unscheduled debate on the case.

"Abdur [sic] Rahman should not flee and should not be allowed to leave Afghanistan … he should be kept under supervision," he said.

Yesterday Mr Rahman arrived safely in Italy, where he has received asylum.

Abdul Rahman arrived in Rome days after he was freed from a high-security prison on the outskirts of Kabul after a court dropped charges of apostasy against him for lack of evidence and suspected mental illness.
. . .
It [the case] also inspired an appeal by Pope Benedict XVI to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and efforts by the United Nations to find a country to take him in after Muslim clerics in Afghanistan threatened his life, saying his conversion was a "betrayal to Islam."

Rahman was in the care of Italy's Interior Ministry, Premier Silvio Berlusconi said Wednesday evening. "He is already in Italy," he said. "I think he arrived overnight."

The premier declined to release more details. The Interior Ministry said Rahman was "under protection."

Thank God for Abdul Rahman’s release, escape, and safe landing in Italy. Thanks also for those Western leaders who interceded on his behalf, especially Canada’s own Stephen Harper. (It’s been far too long since my country has had such a prime minister.)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai will have to increase his personal security measures. A lot of his own people are very angry that he allowed Mr Rahman to be freed and then to flee the country. In apparent retaliation for the unfavourable international attention given to Mr Rahman’s plight, many more Afghan Christians have been arrested in recent days. Persecution and harassment have increased.

The threat of death hangs over the heads of all Afghan Christians, of whom US-based groups say there may be as many as 10,000, meeting secretly in houses for prayer and bible study, and living in fear of their lives. Under Afghanistan’s strict Islamic law conversion to another religion is a capital offense and Muslim leaders have been calling for Rahman’s execution and threatening to kill him.
. . .
When the announcement of Rahman’s release was made public, demonstrations broke out in which protesters chanted, “Death to Christians” among the anti-Bush and anti-American slogans.

It is good to hear that there may be 10,000 Christians in Afghanistan. I hope that Abdul Rahman’s faithful and fearless witness in the face of death threats will lead many more Muslims to inquire into the basis for the hope that is in him.  I also hope that international publicity directed against Islamic anti-“apostasy” laws will continue unabated.

One paradoxical result of this international incident may be to give added energy to the anti-war movement in the West. My initial reaction when I first heard of Abdul Rahman’s arrest and trial was: Why are Canadian soldiers protecting the people of Afghanistan if this is how they treat religious converts? I suspect that many Canadians who formerly supported our humanitarian mission over there are asking t