Ed & Art: “You have to listen to this woman.  Even just the first minute.  Remember, this person has a driver’s license and is out there on the road somewhere.  This is why Trump could win.”

☞ Oh, deer.




And if you have another minute, read Tom Friedman’s column on why it is our great ally Saudi Arabia, not our great enemy Iran, that is the leading sponsor of terrorism and radical Islam that so threaten the world.  (And given how awful Iran is, that’s saying something.)




Speaking of which, you can see my friend Parvez Sharma’s A Sinner In Mecca, discussed here — “most striking is his footage, filmed on a mobile phone and two tiny cameras without permission from Saudi authorities, then smuggled out of the country” — at New York’s Cinema Village from September 4-11 . . . LA’s Laemmle Village from September 11-18 . . . Cinema Detroit September 18-25 . . . and San Diego’s Digital Gym Cinema October 9-15.

It is a New York Times “critic’s pick,” with 10 out of 10 favorable reviews here on Rotten Tomatoes.

“Islam is imploding upon itself right now and there’s a huge crisis,” Parvez told a French journalist.  “It (a reformation) is happening, but it is happening too slowly and we’re running out of time.  The change needs to happen with Wahhabi Islam [the Saudi brand] — that is the root of all the problems.”

“Mr. Sharma has created a swirling, fascinating travelogue and a stirring celebration of devotion.” – NEW YORK TIMES

“Next time you hear politicians or right-wing broadcasters asking why “moderate” Muslims don’t denounce terrorism, show them this movie.” – THE VILLAGE VOICE

“A Sinner in Mecca” takes its audience where no movie has gone before . . . an absolute must-see for any student of sociology or religion.” – THE DAILY NEWS




And one other note on religion: the Kentucky clerk jailed for defying the Supreme Court on religious grounds.

Jim Burt: “She has been jailed for ‘contempt of court’ – that is, repeatedly defying a lawful order of the court having jurisdiction over the present dispute — not for ‘practicing her religion.’  If she had been of a different religious persuasion, and felt prior to the Supreme Court’s decision that she should, as a matter of conscience and religious belief, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite this then being against Kentucky law, should she have been permitted to do so because to stop her would have impaired her freedom of religion?”

☞ We all favor religious freedom; but I’m not sure the religious-freedom folks would have taken her side.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmail