You might think it’s an easy enough question, but it’s not to Congressman Eric Massa.

Colleen LaRose, an American woman known as Jihad Jane, is on the cover of every Swedish tabloid today. She is one of the eight people who allegedly planned to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks for his drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.

More here.

Update: Here are a few of the many press articles on Jihad Jane and Lars Vilks:

• Los Angles Times
• New York Times
• The Times
• The Guardian
• Jerusalem Post
• Ynetnews

Eight jihadists, including one American woman, have been arrested by the police on suspicions of conspiracy to murder Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks.

See Vilks’s controversial drawings here.

The homophobic lobby is predicting a grim future of American soldiers who talk openly about their families:

Repealing DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] isn’t about gays serving. They already serve. Repealing DADT is about gays telling. It’s about achieving endorsement of homosexuality, and gay activist agenda items, through both military regulation and military culture.

Yes, wouldn’t it be terrifying if gay soldier stopped pretending that their boyfriends back home are girlfriends? What would this truth-telling do to the army? Truth is scary.

This is really stupid. It’s better for the army as a whole if soldiers are allowed to speak the truth without having to fear being kicked out.

Meanwhile, Palestinian activists use the American free-speech legislation to humiliate Israel. That is fine by me. Stamp on the Israeli flag all you want.

The irony is that these activists demonstrate support of Hamas, an organization that does not recognize free speech or any other civil liberty.

Unlike the friends of Hamas, I support free speech for everyone. Mocking flags should not be allowed only for the politically wicked.

A group of Jewish-American activists have had enough of Israel Apartheid Week. Read more about my opinion on Israel Apartheid Week here.

— Who are you wearing?
— Mossad.

A new poll made for the BBC World Service suggests that almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right. Madness! Internet is no more a human right than telephones or television. It is problematic that people think things like the Internet are fundamental rights when real human rights are not yet implemented throughout the world.

In December, I wrote an article on male circumcision for MalmöModeraten, a publication for the members of the Malmö chapter of the Moderate Party. In the article, I defended the freedom of religion and argued that Jews and Muslims must be allowed to perform one of the most fundamental rituals of Judaism and Islam. If the government prohibit them from doing so, it would violate a fundamental civil right.

In my article, I gave a short explanation of the various cultural background and scriptural justification for male circumcision; for example that Abraham circumcised his older son Ishmael when the boy was thirteen years old and his younger son Isaac on the boy’s eighth day.

Yesterday I received the latest issue of MalmöModeraten; I was chocked by a response that completely distorts everything I wrote. In a reply to me, local politician Elisabeth Elgh writes, “Your arguments for circumcision of small boys is based on biblical stories about Abraham’s sons where you claim that one can find that a ban on circumcision would be a violation of the freedom of religion.” Later she asks rhetorically if there are any other body parts that parents in name of religion could pay to have removed from their children. She finishes her article by stating that freedom of religion is about being able to choose religion.

It is obvious that Ms Elgh has no interest in a serious discussion. She not only fail to understand my article, she did not even read my name right.

In my article I wrote that a ban on circumcision would be to Jews and Muslims what a ban on baptism would be to Christians. A ban on any of these rituals would hit at the core of these religious cultures. It would be impossible to be a practising Jew if circumcision of boys was criminalized. Muslims might be able to adjust if a ban was restricted for younger boys.

Ms Elgh is wrong about freedom of religion. Article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the every European Union citizen is free to manifest his or her religion in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. This convention was included in Sweden’s national constitution when the country became member of the EU in 1995.

My Swedish readers can compare my original article to Ms Elgh’s reply, which is pictured above. I have not yet decided if I will write a second article for the next issue of MalmöModeraten.

Update: Here’s the exact reading of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Here’s the exact reading of Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is included in the Lisbon Treaty and bounding law for all EU member states since December 2009:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

There are now two European human-rights declarations that protect religious minorities’ right to practice and observe their religions.

OMG, it’s a tie!

The idea that men cannot shake hand with women is ridiculous, but it is even more ridiculous to have a government agency demand it for unemployment benefits.

To some, there is nothing more frightening than people who don’t want to boss you around.

Swedish doctor, blogger, and debater Pelle Billing says he will discredit me if I don’t do as he says. I have now removed a picture he complained about, but I suspect that he will not be happy until I remove all criticism of his despicable jargon in the debate about male circumcision.

According to Men’s News Daily’s masthead, one of Dr Billing’s core beliefs is that there “can be no intelligent discussion on gender dynamics without acknowledging innate sex differences.” Well, one of his favourite arguments against male circumcision is that there is no difference between male and female genitalia and that the bris should therefore be considered as deplorable as female genital mutilation. I might be wrong, but I think most people would consider the sexual organs the most obvious “innate sex difference” there is.

If you want to read the entry that upset Dr Billing, you will find it here. Last night I added the email correspondence between Billing and myself. It’s in Swedish, so most of you will not be able to read it. However, there is a short summary in English.

About 4,000 American Jews moved to Israel in 2009. So much for post-Zionism.

Almost half a million people have petitioned the Ugandan Parliament to drop debate on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

I spent the evening at Jägersro Trav & Galopp, a horse racing track in Malmö.

Local politicians in the tiny town of Carrickmacross in eastern Ireland have decided to remove the Israeli ambassador’s signature from its guestbook. They hope this will “send a serious message to Israel”. If the message were “never pay attention to Irish peasants”, I think it is now successfully delivered.

Interior Ministry Permanent Secretary Lazaros Savvides says the Cypriote government will soon examine the issue of making same-sex marriages legal on the island.

The Jewish Chronicle asks the question, and it seems more people say yes.

The Roman Catholic Church has a long tradition of homophobia. It says homosexuality is only one of many sins, but it singles out gay people when it comes to actual punishment and discrimination. Mafia hit men and paedophile priests are forgiven, but a man who is open about his love for another man is condemned and denied communion. It has nothing to do with the Bible, Jesus, or Christianity, it is about scapegoating. The church loves to blame a minority group of all the wrongdoings in the world. It used to be the Jews, but now it’s more convenient to have gay people suffer to make the priesthood feel better about itself.

This week, a number of Dutch gays decided they had had enough of this nonsense and arranged a protest during a mass. I don’t think it will make much difference, and I’m not even sure it is the right way to go about a protest, but I figure the gay protesters felt better about themselves afterwards. One thing I do know is that silence is death; history has taught us that oppressed minorities have nothing to gain from being stoic.