• First published in 2004 as Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion (BNOR).

    Previously at:
    blogs.salon.com/0003494
    barthsnotes.wordpress.com

    Email me
    (Non-commercial only)

  • Archives

  • Twitter

  • Supporting

  • Recent comments

WorldNetDaily Publishes “Forensic Analysis” Showing Obama’s “Fealty to Islam”

A new pundit on WorldNetDaily reveals the shocking truth about Obama’s Muslim “fealty” – step forward one Pieder Beeli:

Often we can tell the truth about what someone believes by performing an inferential or forensic analysis. We analyze what is implied rather than what is explicitly stated…

Of course, “performing an inferential or forensic analysis” is just a pompous and vacuous way of asserting special analytical acumen – and to me, it “infers” that Beeli in fact is lacking in just this attribute (cf Ellis Washington). And indeed, this proves to be the case: he picks a few comments by Obama he doesn’t like the sound of (probably brought to his attention by conservative websites), and ranks these in terms of pluses and minuses in relation to Christianity and Islam. He laughably calls this “forensic linguistics”:

When speaking of the origins of Islam, why does Obama use the word “revealed”? In his Cairo speech, Obama said, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed [emphasis added].” One does not expect a Christian to suggest that God revealed Islam to Muhammad for the simple reason that if God did such, then Christianity is wrong… Why would not Obama instead choose to say, “when Islam was invented” or “fabricated” – or at least use the more equipoise “when Islam began…”?

…Similarly, when referring to the foundational book of Islam, why does Obama regularly and forcefully append the word “holy”?

…Concerning the foundational texts of Islam and Christianity, then, forensic linguistics tell us that the score is Islam +1, Christianity -1 (that’s minus 1).

…Obama shows a deference to align public policy with Islam. However, he shows a strong refusal to align public policy with Christian principles. When the context is Christianity, Obama warns against “sectarianism” and supports “secularism” (really, atheism).

Beeli also sees the hand of Obama behind Mosab Hassan Yousef’s immigration problems, even though it’s unlikely that the case has even crossed his desk:

While all historic schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence affirm the death penalty for apostasy, Obama has not allowed this fact to entertain hesitancy in sending Mosab to certain death.

He concludes:

While Obama may not be a Muslim, his fealty toward Islam and multiculturalism far exceed his fealty toward Christianity… our cumulative Obama score is Islam +4, Christianity -3.

Beeli has a PhD in physics from Notre Dame, and he also battles the theory of evolution; he is a signatory to the self-proclaimed “Growing list of eminent Scientists who are sceptical about the Claims of Darwinism“. This blog notes a contribution to the student newspaper

In the middle of the Observer are the editorial pages, called “Viewpoint.” The most interesting letter to the editor is from Pieder Beeli, a graduate student in physics. On the topic of biological evolution, he takes umbrage with the neo-Darwinian “fish to man theory that is dogmatically taught” at Notre Dame.

Beeli challenges the professors in the anthropology department to respond with proof of one instance where “an organism gains beneficial genetic information… from random mutational events” as it “develops to a state of greater complexity.” In his last paragraph, Beeli goads them a bit: “After 136 years of Darwinism, they certainly should be able to produce one example.”

(The blogger later triumphantly notes that “While I eat, I page through The Observer, looking to see if a prof from the anthropology department answered Pieder Beeli’s challenge. Nothing.”).

In 2000, Beeli corresponded with David Markowitz of the physics department at the University of Connecticut. Markowitz wrote that:

I received an email from a reader named Pieder Beeli bearing on questions of science, religion and evidence. He wrote in part, “May I suggest that you read Warrant and Proper Function by Alvin Plantinga. I especially had the chapter Is Naturalism Rational? in mind after finishing your editorial. There are multiple usages of the word “science.” One of the senses in which you used it is more appropriately called “naturalism.” Of course science is bigger than naturalism and should be able to bear on it. E.g. “Is naturalism rational?” etc…” So I dutifully bought the book by Plantinga, who is a philosopher at Notre Dame. Reading it is a punishment for a crime I did not commit.

Pieder also recommends books in other areas; he is a fan of Gold: The Once and Future Money by Nathan Lewis, and he complains that

Ironically a single unwitting Jew, Bernake, is committing terrorism on the US comparable to all the rest of the 1.2 B Muslims combined.

Ticking another of the usual boxes seen with his sort of character, he also here references the Roman Empire:

The “dark ages” and the fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to monetary policy.

But Pieder isn’t just a keyboard warrior; we read from March that he had an encounter with Rifqa Bary, the teenage ex-Muslim:

17-year-old Rifqa Bary stood outside courtroom 63 at the Franklin County Courthouse. The frail girl wore a lavender sweater and a huge smile while she greeted supporters. One of those was Pieder Beeli, who drove his wife and five children over from Dayton to meet the teen for the first time.

“She needs to be protected by some adults who will stand up and defend the American notion of equality under God,” Beeli said.

20 Responses

  1. […] may also want to check out this post which deals more expressly with the World Nut Daily’s article. SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "John Adams was a Muslim", url: […]

  2. He can’t even use the term ‘forensic linguistics’ correctly; it means linguistics that relates to the legal system (study of wording of laws, statements of rights, courtroom discourse etc.).

  3. Rifqa Bary needs to be protected from adults with a variety of political axes to grind.

  4. […] You may also want to check out this post which deals more expressly with the World Nut Daily’s article. […]

  5. […] See Barth Notes: WorldNetDaily Publishes “Forensic Analysis” Showing Obama’s “Fealty to Islam” […]

  6. FROM FISH TO MAMMAL
    This is fantasy but an even bigger one is mammal to
    whale dolphins etc.
    Could you imagine one of these sheep that eat seaweed on the west coast of Scotland evolving into
    a whale. How could random genetic damage to DNA design a whale ? – why not just keep eating seaweed and grass.
    Darwin – poor man – thought that bears evolved into
    whales but he had more excuse – he did not know
    about DNA.

  7. It is coherent – evolutionists believe that fish came out
    of the sea and “evolved” their DNA into mammals – then amazingly “evolved” their DNA ( about 3 billion items of code) back to sea creatures – what an amazing chance. There would be more probabilty of winning the lottery a thousand times in a row than this happening.
    What is your view of the redesigning of the DNA code into another creature -who would undertake such a task.
    Darwin knew less biology than your average A level
    student.

    • The chances of that amazing evolution happening are infinitely higher than of you going to heaven.

      If you don’t understand evolutionary biology stay out of the discussion.

      Perhaps you can join in with the vilification of Rifqa Bary’s poor parents. You’ll find plenty of like minded ignoramuses amongst that group.

  8. Strange how the auto generator has thrown up a link to my very loose review of Aaron W. Hughes’ Situating Islam, which suggests questioning foundational Islamic texts has been made difficult due in part to discourses generated by postcolonial theory. I would like to point out that, IMHO, serious academic debates surrounding foundational Muslim texts and anti-Muslims attacks on them are not comparable, and conflating them is the intellectual equivalent of calling chalk and cheese one and the same.

  9. Dear Twisted – If you understand evolutionary biology then maybe could you explain in your own words how the DNA of a deer could change into the DNA of a whale – BY ACCIDENT ?? This was a documentary on NAT. Geographic.

    Lets stay on the specifics . How did the deer’s DNA
    know how to design say whale sonar – By Accident ?

    Why do evolutionists never explain even their theory
    let alone the evidence. I await eagerly.

    • “I couldn’t understand documentary on TV” = “evolutionists never explain even their theory”. Good grief…

  10. Richard – go on explain your “faith” on how the DNA of one creature turns into the DNA of another creature by genetic damage – no one has ever answered this.
    By the way Natural Selection is NOT a design mechanism for new creatures. It only improves EXISTING design. It can’t make a whale from a deer but it can make a fit deer.

  11. Richad – still waiting on your reply – please no talk origin websites – your OWN summary of the theory of evolution. You will find this difficult.

  12. please no talk origin websites – your OWN summary of the theory of evolution

    In other words: “please explain evolution to me, but you mustn’t reference any other source which may have dealt with it before”.

    Not interested. No advancement in human knowledge has ever been made by arguing about evolution in blog comments.

  13. Well many theories could be written in a paragraph – whilst the data proving them could be voluminous.

    All I was asking for is the driving mechanism that can change the DNA of a deer to a whale. By the way NAT.
    GEOG. did not go into detail but just kept using the word “evolved”.
    So surely an evolutionist can give a brief summary of
    how the DNA is changed to produce blowholes , sonar
    etc. -and what does the half deer half whale live on while it is waiting for millions of years for “chance would be a fine thing”. Methinks the deer would just
    keep eating pine cones – as they do today.

    • I get it – evolution can’t be true because (a) you are personally incredulous of the idea, and because (b) random non-scientists you demand an explanation from don’t come up with new material to rebut your incredulity. The only advice I have is: go and read some books.

  14. Not really – since the theory has been going for over
    a hundred years it should be able to be summarised
    in a paragraph. Eg Darwins theory of evolution
    proposes that one creature can evolve into another creature over time because of random genetic damage
    eg from cosmic rays.
    HOWEVER no one has ever been able to explain how
    or even why this happens or has found any evidence
    that it did happen. Darwin said if thousands of transitionals are not found after his passing then his
    theory is not true.

  15. WHICH CAME FIRST THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG ?
    Some creationist said how would the whale/deer be able to feed its offspring under water. In other words the baby whale would need to evolve the highly complex feeding mechanism that keeps salt water out AT THE SAME TIME as the mother whale evolved her part of the feeding mechanism – Richard – does this not look impossible to you. It can’t happen gradually – it has to be right first time.
    The impossibilities mankind will entertain to avoid
    having to believe there is no judgement and the “lake
    of fire” ( which terrifies me – a sinner)

    Why is Mr Twisted not helping us since he seems to know about evolution.

  16. WND is irrelevant, and so trashing it serves no purpose whatsoever. Then again, the pleasure such leftwing onanism brings should never be discounted.

    Nor does ttrashing WND change anything with regards to the current inept American administration

    What IS relevant is the fact Obama enjoys the support/approval of only. 17% of Egyptians… the lowest of any Pew poll ever taken on the subject. His ridiculous hope ‘n change ‘outreach’ to the muslim world is an utter failure, and his slavish appeals to various muslim nations/leaders has only served to embolden the jihadists and to alienate the moderates.

    Obama’s religion counts for nothing. What really matters, and what is really dangerous, is the fact that both he AND his entourage are as dumb as a sack of hammers.

    Dumber than even WND.

    Shocking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.