A story posted at Yahoo News detailed the steps taken in Washington, DC to prepare for a retaliatory attack on the part of Al Qaeda over the death of Osama Bin Ladin. Among the measures included increased police protection of synagogues and mosques.

What about Christian churches?

Aren’t these structures as worthy of protection?

However, they were not mentioned in the article.

If not, shouldn’t the DC government admit that they are not as concerned about any Christians that die in an attack as they are Jews or Muslims?

Those that properly recall their history will remember that one of the things that turned Bin Ladin against the United States initially was the presence of “Crusaders” in lands deemed sacred and holy by devout Muslims such as Saudi Arabia.

“Crusaders” is a term some Muslims utilize when speaking of Christians in reference to the conflicts during the Middle Ages where Roman Catholic authorities attempted to liberate the Biblical Holy Lands from Islamic control.

As such, if you wanted to strike back at an enemy that you thought was attacking your religion wouldn’t the Washington National Cathedral or the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception --- prominent structures admired and beloved not only by native Washingtonians but by enthusiasts of religious art across the county --- be better targets?

A fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is equal protection under the law.

When a terrorist bomb explodes, the projectile shrapnel of the device can just as easily take out the lives of bystander Christians, Jews, or even Muslims.

by Frederick Meekins

It is said that a picture says a thousand words. When it comes to today’s politically correct world, presenting some pictures may say even more. President Barack Obama’s refusal to submit the death photo of the number one terrorist behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is a fundamentally flawed decision full of negative consequences.  The President’s decision appears to be based on a concern that terrorists around the world will be inflamed to a higher level if bin Laden’s death becomes public through pictures. This argument is weak and without supporting evidence. Certainly the idea of withholding potentially inflammatory photos for fear of angering terrorists around the world went out the door years ago with the overwhelming photo coverage of human rights violations at Abu Ghraib. If documenting this portion of American history through photos was deemed reasonable, how can withholding Osama bin Laden’s death photo from the American people and history be justified?

The President also seems to believe that releasing bin Laden’s death photo is in itself an act of selfish aggression beneath the dignity of the American people, which he has termed “spiking the ball.” Someone should walk the president through American history, which is in complete opposition to this line of thinking. Historically, America has consistently used photos to chronicle the history of the deaths of those that have brought terror to this country. This has been a fundamental byproduct of our free speech that is recognized through our Constitution.  This freedom to document history through published photos may not be pretty, but it was never feared nor denied to the American people.  read more »