Leaving Christ out of Christmas?

For Christ's sake, leave Christ out of Christmas

I dearly love it when self-professed Christian liberals cite all the reasons why Christmas should not be a religious holiday.

I will grant that everything the woman who wrote the above piece is true, but that misses the point. Christmas is about the birth of the Christian messiah.

Ok, the date is wrong … so what? Neither she nor any other professed expert can say with any real certainty when Jesus of Nazareth was born in the town of Bethlehem.

Actually, no one really can demonstrate by other than the Bible that Jesus even was born, lived or died. Sorry, but the historical record just isn’t there and besides, assuming that someone found a Judeo-Roman contemporary secular record somewhere that references some Jewish rabbi from Galilee who got himself crucified by the Roman authorities at the request of the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem during the administration of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, how many people would accept it as fact.

No, the Bible is taken on faith (as is about every other historical document that predates those people currently alive).

Since it taken on faith, then does it really matter what day Jesus was born on? Not to a Christian. What matters is that he was born; he lived; he died; and he was resurrected. His death absolves us of our sins on judgment day, if we accept him as God’s representative on Earth and try to follow his teachings.

All the other traditions are merely eye-wash. Yes, they have come from various pre-Christian European cultures, but so what? It takes nothing away from the reason for the season.

So it is with all traditions. There is no “American” tradition, when you want to look at it. Nor is there a North American tradition (since Canada is inextricably linked to the United States on so many cultural levels). All our traditions, no matter the holiday, reflect the multitude of cultures that have melded in make the common core of the culture we accept in North America.

However, as Christians, we have chosen to celebrate the birth of our Savior; and by centuries of tradition, that celebration has occurred in December. You don’t like that; then don’t celebrate Christmas, or more accurately, Christ-Mass.

The spirit of Christmas, the beginning of faith, is not tied to some particular day, unless you are really narrow-minded. For example, for years, I often have been unable to celebrate “Christmas” on Dec. 25. For one reason or another, the tradition of exchanging gifts has fallen on other days of the month of December. Does that mean I am not Christian? Or does that mean I haven’t celebrated the Christ’s birth? I don’t think so.

So, those who want to separate Christmas from the religious holiday, they can do so, but why not give it a new name. Why hijack the Christians’ celebration and turn it into some secular event, divorced from the reason for the season.

In the United States, we have done so much to take Christ out of the season already, it is no longer funny. It truly has, as the leftist Christians say, like the author of the linked article above, become a non-event as far as the faith is concerned. It has become some narcissistic exercise in which the object of the holiday is forgotten.

Why do we give gifts – exchange gifts? Is it just so we can get some material wealth that makes us feel good for the moment? That is not the spirit of Christmas in my book.

From my perspective, and you are welcome to disagree or denigrate it at your pleasure, the offering of gifts is in recognition of the gift of salvation that the Christ gave us on the cross.

We often hear that it is in the giving that we should be most grateful. Not in what we have received but in what we have been able to give others, to put smiles on their faces and to give them feelings of warmth and love.

So, those of you who want to pick apart the traditions of Christmas … it ain’t no skin off me, as the saying goes.

If you want to point out the traditions observed in the United States (and Canada) are an amalgamation of the many different cultures that make up the populations of both great nations, then is that not a reflection of incredible kaleidoscope that is the culture that we share here. I think it is, and I think it pays tribute to the diversity of the people who live in North America. Should we not celebrate that diversity with the acknowledgement that the reason for the season really is religious and keep that thought in mind.

I, for one, think that those who want to take the Christ out of Christmas can do so. I only ask that they pick another name for their holiday.

Maybe the rest of the story

Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible
When an Egyptian cleric burned a copy of the Bible last fall in front of the US Embassy in Cairo, it was interesting to read that Egyptian authorities arrested him and his son under that country’s blasphemy laws.
There was a trial about a month later and then the case seemed to drop beneath all radars, until this past week, when an Egyptian news agency reported the cleric noted for his presence on Egyptian broadcast TV had been sentenced for the act.
Apparently, such prosecutions apparently are relatively rare in Egypt, except when it is Christians who offend Muslims (according to most reports).
As a supporter of the rule of law, it is gratifying to see the law applied equally, or some semblance of it (the fine is ridiculously low when compare to the fine levied on a Coptic Christian which is cited in the HuffPo version).
On the other hand, as American and as a supporter of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, I would have opposed prosecution in both cases. People have the right to offend and be offended but that does not always give the State/Government the right or even obligation to punish the offenders. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
As the old saying goes: I may vehemently disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.
Unfortunately, the filmmaker who “started” this phoo-pha-rah apparently remains in a US jail for violating his probation on an unrelated charge. He was jailed after members of President Obama’s administration called for his prosecution. Now that is a sad commentary on the American sense of justice.

Off the radar screen.

Egypt refers case to trial
Does the name Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah ring any bells? Well he is the radical Islamist Egyptian imam who tore up a Christian Bible in front of the U.S. Embassy back in the middle of September.
He reportedly was arrested under Egyptian blasphemy laws. At first he was supposed to go to the local court Sept. 25, then Sept. 30, then Oct. 14, then Oct. 20 … and as far as I can tell, it still hasn’t gone before a judge. Now, those of us in the U.S. are used to these things dragging on in the court system for years, because that is how it is done here … but that is not how it is done in the Middle East. Even on relatively serious crimes you get a very speedy trial (if you are not an international celebrity, and even then it might be dicey) and if convicted, the sentence usually is carried out rather rapidly.
However, in this case, I guess the clerks of the court have lost the paper work and everybody else is distracted by the elections in the US. I think our defendant in this case has just walked right back to his TV studio to resume his life.
The question I have is: where are the riots here in the US demanding he be held accountable for insulting Christianity. Oh. that is right, Christians can’t be insulted in an country following Islam’s Sharia law.
Just thought I would point that out in passing.

PS: The Feds still are holding the alleged  producer of the allegedly insulting YouTube  video in jail on charges of parole violations. No hearings yet. That will have to wait until after the election.

Domestic terror v. Islamic: Moral Equivalence

US “terrorist” incidents

Islamic “terrorist” incidents

Domestic “terrorism” in the U.S.

It seems interesting to me that some people try to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Islamic terrorist and U.S. “terrorists”; to draw a similarity between U.S. religious fundamentalists/evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists/evangelists/jihadiis.

One of my daughters is one; my progressive friend out west is another. To me, there seems to be at least an order of magnitude, if not two, three or four or more, between the two.

Take the “domestic” terrorist incidents that actually caused casualties in the United States. You can add it in the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the Virginia Tech campus shooting spree. What the heck we will also add in the DC sniper attacks from a few years back. I, for one, say: Let’s add in the Occupy protests of the last year.

Compare that to the casualties caused by Islamic terrorists and Islamic violence related to demonstrations. Please, start counting the casualties. Count the number of incidents.

Please, tell me where the moral equivalence is there now. There isn’t. There can’t be, unless you say causing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, is equal to the number of deaths caused by the Unibomber, or the guy who bombed Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics, or even Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick Terry Nichols who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Ok, the “experts” will tell you that terrorism on the “right” is as big a threat or more to the US than those from Islamic fundamentalists and Jihadists.

CNN story on domestic terrorism threat from back in July 2012

After watching the events of the past week, I am not so sure. Sure, we have our share of idiots in the U.S., left and right, who are crackpot enough to kill people, damage or destroy property or just cause chaos because they can. But, my point is, that those efforts pale in comparison to the violence and chaos we see and read about coming out of countries where Islamic – you can’t deny these people are not Muslims, but with 1.6 billion Muslims, they obviously are not in the majority (I think) – mobs, terrorists, etc. have resulted in the deaths of tens of people, so far, hundreds more injured and an untold amount of property damaged or destroyed. And to what end?

Note, that the violence against a stupid YouTube video has spread halfway around the world, with accompanying bloodied heads and burning and smashed vehicles.

Give me a break. There is no moral equivalence here. It is not even close.

In addition, we have leaders of countries and religious groups blaming not the mobs for their excesses, or the terrorists for their attacks, but the victims for not punishing someone whose speech happens to be protected by law.

Again, we might not like this film … heck, like a lot of people, I don’t like very many films – big budget or low budget – these days … but like those big budget movie makers and those makers of the porn movies – soft core and otherwise, they have a right to do that in the United States. Sorry, you don’t like that, then get over it. Don’t look at the crap, or at least don’t buy it or rent it from a video store.

It really amazes me sometimes that there are those in the U.S. that go into hyperdrive over our lunatic fringe. I may be blind, and probably am, but I am sorry, but I don’t see them as much as a threat as people who have sworn their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to crush the United States. I believe them. I wonder about those who don’t believe that among 1.6 billion people, that a substantial minority (far larger than any of the fringe groups in the U.S.) don’t pose a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.

Not until I see the leading ayatollahs, and the leaders of Islamic countries, using their bully pulpits to denounce the violence and chaos – ala the Pope currently in Lebanon – and calling on their followers to reject it, to contest it, to resist it, will I believe that the Islamic faith has turned a corner and is willing to coexist with people who don’t agree with them.

To my Muslim readers: Why the violence?

Short history of Muslim intolerance
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)

I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?

Something wrong here

Egyptians storm US Embassy compound in Cairo
Protesters scale wall of US Embassy in Egypt
Libyan protesters burn American consulate
Libyan protesters kill US Consular employee
US Embassy statement on events
OK, folks, something is seriously wrong with this picture and it ain’t the U.S.’s fault.
Sorry but Muslims are going to have to get a tougher skin and stop acting like idiots because it reflects badly on them and their religion. Tuesday, 9/11/12, Muslim protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic offices, killing one person, wounding a second and tearing down the U.S. flag while painting graffiti on the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo, Egypt.
Their reason: Because America allowed some unknown filmmaker in California to produce a movie that depicts the prophet Mohammed in a bad light … actually; it apparently depicts him as a sex-crazed murdering maniac.
This of course is insulting to any true-blue Islamicist and merits at least a riot or two, burning buildings and flags and possibly killing some people. What a bunch of bovine scatology or maybe I should say porcine scatology or porcine fecal material!
I am sorry Egyptians; I am sorry Libyans; but in this country you are allowed to insult religions, people, government institutions, businesses, hospitals, your neighbors, etc. and if you don’t like it, then you take them to court. You do not shoot people; you do not storm their property; and you do not destroy or deface their property. No, you don’t do those things because you respect the rights of others to be idiots.
And especially you don’t go blaming the government or some government agency of a nation that isn’t even yours for letting their citizens act like idiots. Obvious, the Americans are much more enlightened than you are, or at least more tolerant than you are, because we just nod our heads and say, “They are at it again” and go on about our lives.
We don’t storm the local mosque, or the Egyptian Embassy or whatever goes for the Libyan Embassy, every time a mob kills a bunch of tourists or Christians or whatever minority group is in disfavor in the Middle East. No, Americans look at the person who is insulting and say, “What an idiot” and let him go on being an idiot.
You see, we Americans are governed by the rule of law. Apparently that concept is alien where you live. You really ought to try it sometime. It lets all sorts of people with differing views and opinions coexist peacefully without destroying people or lives. I am beginning to understand that in Egypt and in Libya your people apparently don’t like the idea that an individual can be allowed the freedom to think for themselves. Apparently, if these latest actions are any indication, you think that everyone has to believe just as you do, or they should die or something worse.
And despite the rhetoric being spouted by our government and its leadership, we are starting to get just a tad bit exasperated with the screaming intolerance being exhibited by your so-called demonstrators.
We put up with you burning our flag, burning and destroying religious texts that we hold sacred, because a) you are not Americans and we don’t expect you to understand the concept of the law and tolerance and b) because you are not here. Otherwise we probably would be suing your pants off, in court where the law is the master and not your emotions because you were insulted.
I think I can speak for a lot of Americans. You all in the Middle East, and much of Muslim world, need to grow up real fast and understand that you can’t just throw temper tantrums when somebody offends you. You consider the source, call them ignorant if you want, and then move on.
But going down and defacing their property, shooting people, and basically showing your derrieres is so beneath what you could be as a person. It definitely shows a enormous lack of dignity and self-respect on your part.
One of these days, those with patience, well, you will see their patience tested, if not run out and though might does not make right … might does wield a pretty big hammer and you don’t want to be where it falls.

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Journalistic hit job

Mormon Church takes in billions in tithes, owns billions in property and businesses

First of all: Who the heck cares how much Mormons give to their church? Who cares what they spend it on? And why would anybody be trying to study it?

Ok, folks, once again, it seems that NBC News has decided that the fact that the Mormon Church receives about $7 Billion per year through tithes from its members, that makes it a) worthy of a news story and b) critical analysis of the LDS Church’s investments. I guess this is because probably Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney happens to be Mormon and this gives NBC an opportunity to sling a few globs of mud and stuff.

Well, how about the Roman Catholic Church? I mean Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, the major parties’ presumed nominees for vice-president are both Catholics. What about their church? Oh, the best estimate I could find was somewhere between $100 Billion and $400 Billion, and that does not include the money that church receives from being the largest landholder in the world. As for all it other assets, let’s just say they are priceless.

My point being is that who the devil cares how much the Mormon Church receives in tithes … or for that matter, what any other church receives in tithes and donations? Unless you are member of the church involved, then it really isn’t any of your business … unless, of course, you are looking to stir the kettle of resentment against a particular faith. You think this is silly? Just look at the Jews who have been the targets of pogroms and discrimination because they are perceived to be “wealthy.” It matters not if they are or not, the resentment makes a good diversion from other issues that those stirring the pot would rather the masses don’t notice.

I am sorry, but I was hoping that we in America had gotten past that type of behavior. Obviously, I am wrong, but I guess I could continue to want to hope that we are better than that.

It angers me, not because I am particularly religious (and I definitely am not Mormon nor Jewish), but because it is something that has to be pointed out at all. NBC, the silly professor in Florida who apparently did the study and any other hangers on really deserve to be shunned. You know the good Amish tradition when someone does something that violates community standards, the community just stops talking to them, stops all associations with them. We need to start invoking it against some of these instigators.

It seems that no matter what religion you are these days, you are going to stand condemned for being a believer. I wish those who profess to want to be our leaders would be lashing out verbally against these kinds of attacks. I don’t mean the leaders under direct assault. I mean the other leaders in our communities, our civic groups and organizations, our churches, our synagogues, our temples, our mosques, our city halls, our county seats, our state capitols and, yes, even in the our national government who should be out there saying: This type of attack is wrong. We call on it to be stopped.

Ok, I am a raving lunatic. I know that this is not going to happen, nor does the realist in me ever expect it would ever happen, but I can at least be a lonely voice in the wilderness. Hell, I know I am, but at least I am saying something. I only wish more people would say something.

You know the old saying: If you convince two people to do the right thing and they each convince two people in turn, and you keep that chain going with each individual convincing two more people, it is amazing what you can accomplish.

Anyway, it is a random thought.

Real World

Example of the progressives'' mindset: Dumb and Dumber

 

The author of the linked article is a professor of linguistics out in California and he makes a plea to his fellow Democrats and progressives to use the language carefully or the plebeians might catch on that they are being talked down to.

To me, that is one of the problems with the so-called liberals and progressives: They tend to talk down to people they disagree with. You see, according to the above article, the problem with “low-information voters” (which probably includes the vast majority of voters) is they are not voting for what is in their material interest sometimes, but what feels right in their gut. This supposedly explains why sometimes people who are not filthy, obscenely rich sometimes vote against the liberals and for the conservatives, who usually are Republicans and not Democrats.

Now, these dumb people, who don’t know what is in their own interest, for their own good and obviously in the national interest, need to be courted, but unfortunately they are smart enough to know when someone is calling them dumb … and the professor points out they have figured out that calling them a “LIV” essentially is calling them dumb. Bad move.

Ok, what is the problem here? The problem is an entire mindset. There is a mindset that thinks that if a person has a certain background, a certain religious preference, looks a certain way, talks a certain way, then obviously they are too stupid … oops, silly, and dumb (which really means mute, but we are using it colloquially) and need to have those who are more educated, let’s say, more cosmopolitan, more learned, make all the important decisions for them. The implication is that they are too dumb to do what is “right” and they cling to their “bibles and guns.”

Sorry, wrong answer. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I long ago figured out not to put someone down because they don’t have some piece of paper or haven’t been to as much schooling as I have. Now, that, I contend, is really dumb.

For example, I don’t think anyone of my Canadian in-laws have more than a high school diploma (at best, and I know some don’t even come close) and yet, they can do things that leave me in the dust. Oh, sometimes I can bluff my way into maybe making them think I have a clue what they are talking about, but with my college degrees and 40 years of white collar jobs … I am almost always faking it. I do know a little, but that is because I was a journalist and when you are general journalist, you have to learn a little about a whole lot of subjects … as I say, you know enough to get yourself in really deep trouble (because others think you know what you are talking about).

Still, at least one of them has made (and lost and made) more money than I can ever dream of making. Another, well, he is smart as a whip (like his sister) and can figure out how to make things work that leave me totally baffled.

I have worked with people like that all my life. Just because someone has a college degree, or a professional degree, or seems to have a higher intelligence quotient than somebody else, it never makes them better. I have seen high school graduates who were better wordsmiths than people who had masters’ degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities.

I look out at the world today and I see far too many people dismissing others because of what they think they don’t have. Smart is not a piece of paper. Smart is not necessarily a lot of money. Smart can be a lot of things.

It is the reason that I try (and I admit, I am no more a success at this than probably the next man, but I do try) to treat each and every person I meet with the dignity and respect that I hope they will treat me. I don’t make fun of their accents, or their dress, or how much they weigh (like I should talk). I try to accept their lifestyles, even when I disagree with them. I sure as heck don’t try to say to them “Do as I tell you to do!”

I might try to convince them that maybe I have a better idea, but if they don’t agree … well, not much I can do about that.

It is sort of like the linked article. It seems to assume that conservatives and those who disagree with progressive premises are somehow on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Well, I don’t agree, and I would hope that they would agree to disagree civilly.

I know my old progressive classmate out west probably thinks I am a lost cause, but as I keep trying to tell him: I just look at the world through a different prism. He ought to try it sometime.

But then, I do try to do so too … much to the frustration of my dear sweet wife when I get in to mode and start trying to argue things from what I perceive to be “their” perspective. It is great fun as an intellectual exercise, but it keeps me on my toes.

Still, my advice to people out there: Go with your gut. It almost never fails you. Be true to what you believe and at least you will have stood for something. That is all we can do.

This is asinine, people

Chicago Seek to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.

Islam: A Continuing Dialogue

This post is a continuation of a dialog started in the comments section of my post entitled: Criticism v. A Teaching Moment. Which, in itself was a continuation of a discussion of two earlier posts: Islam needs a Reformation and Update on Islam and Reformation.
To me this has been a pleasurable journey into sharing perceptions. However, as my interlocutor who is Muslim has found out, there is only so many characters that can be put in one of those comment boxes and what we want to say oftentimes exceeds that limit.
So, rather than try multiple comments, I have taken advantage my ability to express myself more fully in one take, as we used to say in the newspaper business.
To My Friend, The Anonymous Muslim
Salamalaikum
I would agree with much of your post, but I would take issue with some points.
First, I would never say that the U.S, or the West for that matter, is without sin. The U.S. and the Europeans, pretty much like all the other nations have been responsible for a lot of things, some times they have been good and others not so good. But that is because we are humans.
Second, to say that Islam allows what an American would call “freedom of conscience” is belied, at least in part, by the actions in a lot of countries that profess to be Islamic and are ruled by Sharia law.
http://www.cfr.org/malaysia/religious-conversion-sharia-law/p13552
Third, I would point out that what is one person’s luxury is often considered another person’s need. It really is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that no matter where one goes this will be true. Now, for whatever reason you want to lay it to, people in the United States generally have more “things” that qualify as “luxuries” in other people’s eyes because they don’t have them. Yet, in America, we are having a great debate about the number of people living “in poverty.” I would point out that how you define luxuries and poverty really frame the debate and that real poverty, such as can be found primarily in the “undeveloped” world, is absent in the US. It is only a relative poverty. In fact, the terms developed, developing and undeveloped all are relative terms. They are relative to what you consider developed.
I would contend that the ancient civilizations throughout Asia, Africa, Central America, South America and even on remote islands across the Pacific were highly “developed” and not just the civilizations of Southwest Asia, Northeast Africa and Europe that the student of “western civilization” studies most intently.
Fourth, I would point out the BRIC nations are not being altruistic but rather cooperating in an effort to advance their own individual national interests. I think this is particularly true with the Russians and the Chinese. How else would one explain the creation of a new city in the South China sea far from the southeast coast of China.
Russian flexes its own muscles in its neighborhood through its control of many nations energy supplies.
My point would not be that the US is without sin, but that all are sinners.
Granted, there also is a cultural difference in viewing the use of “natural” resources. Do the resources belong to the people upon the land on which it is found? Do they belong to their neighbors? Do they belong to the world at large?
Do the people who would develop ways to recover these resources deserve any reward for their efforts or should it just go into a pot for everyone in the world? How do you determine who gets to benefit from those resources? Who gets what and how much? The bigger question being: Who decides?
I contend that no matter where you go, when those questions get asked and you involve humans in answering them, you will undoubtedly find those who see the process as unfair and unjust. It is inevitable.
Do not the foreigners deserve a return on their investment in the knowledge, technology and effort they bring to developing a resource in a given land. Who decides who gets how much of the benefits of that development?
Fifth, I would correct you on one point, the U.S. government did not (and could not) prohibit the airing of the tapes of Bin Laden. That the “American news media” did not give it the play that maybe you would have desired is different saying that the government prevented it. Having been a member of that “news media” for nearly 30 years, I can tell you honestly: It didn’t happen. It wouldn’t happen. I also know that the tapes were reported at the time, although very low key, and that the U.S. people were aware of the the threats. (We just didn't listen. Hey, I said Americans weren't always the smartest bulb in the pack)
Now, is the American news media parochial and myopic to the point that it often ignores what people are saying in other countries about American government policies? You can take that to the bank. You are absolutely correct, but the news media in the U.S. is not an extension of the government (even though sometimes it may appear that way, but more often than not the “media” is a real pain in the side of the government.)
As for Muslims being investigated in US for their possible views: Would not Christians be detained and “investigated” by your authorities, if a group of Christian warriors attacked your communities. To argue otherwise, I would think would be to ignore reality and would defy at least my expectations.
I agree that oftentimes the American government refuses entry to people whose past or political views it finds objectionable, but then what country doesn’t? All countries view those who might possibly pose a threat to the established order with disfavor and do everything that they can to discourage dissemination of those views. I don’t care if you are in the West or East, North or South, that is a given because that is the way people are.
To conclude, I would say that we all have a long journey ahead of us. God willing, Enshallah, maybe we will make it, maybe we won’t. I doubt that I will live to see it, but maybe my grandchildren, or their grandchildren will.
To you, my “friend”: Salamalaikum.
And thank you for continuing our dialogue

Mosque vs. Tennessee Community

Mosque in Tennessee faces opposition
Never say that Americans lack bigotry. They can be just as bigoted as anyone in the world. In that sense, Americans are pretty much are like everybody else, regardless of color, creed or national background.
In this case, a Tennessee community took umbrage at group of Muslims in their community building a mosque to hold their prayer services in. The county officials went along with majority in the county and did all sorts of things to block the mosque.
I think it was pretty stupid of them, but I have known plenty of local government officials who, to put it generously, were not the brightest bulb around.
So what should we make of this? Well, I could point out that in places like Saudi Arabia and other countries, people of minority faith also are prohibited from building their own houses of worship, but then, America is supposed to be better than that.
Yes, we are supposed to be better than that, but then again we are only human, so we are reduced to just trying to be better than that. Still, I can think of any number of issues on which some Americans are just out there with their prejudices. Of course, if you call them on it, they go: “What? Who me? There isn’t a prejudiced bone in my body!”
And they would be full of bovine scatology. We are all prejudiced to one degree or another, only some are more than others. We just don’t want to admit it.
I admit it. Won’t tell you what my prejudices are, but I have them, and I suspect that anyone reading this, if they are honest with themselves, would admit they have prejudices.
Now, I can understand why these “Christians” in Tennessee might be a bit apprehensive around Muslims setting up shop in their community. I mean we are fed our daily ration in the news everyday about Muslim violence. It is not that we don’t have our own violence, but if I wanted to I could cite several stories in the current news cycle that would illustrate Muslim violence, whether it is Muslim v. Muslim, Muslim v. Jew, or just Muslim v. infidels in general. It is not a pretty picture and unfortunately paints the entire faith with an image of violence. So, it is not surprising, that the people in this Tennessee community are a bit chary of having an obvious rallying point for “those people.”
The thing is that not all Muslims are Jihadis, just as not all Americans are religious bigots or racial bigots. (It seems most are financial bigots, however)
So, for a nation that once prided itself on its religious tolerance (which was less than legend would have you believe), this is a sad chapter and a classic example of the millennia-old NIMBYism that infects just about all of humanity.
Note: NIMBYism is an acronym: Not In My BackYard. In other words, you can do what you want near somebody else, just don’t do it around me.

Criticism v. A Teaching Moment

A person who wished to remain anonymous posted the following on my posting about Islam needing both a Reformation and an Enlightenment:
You are very ignorant--why don't you go to a mosque near you---it is Ramadan and you might get a free dinner---as well as be able to talk to actual Muslims---and see how the understand their religion. (The Saudi's are not the only Muslims on the planet---you know---in fact the Middle East has only 15% of the global Muslim population---it in no way "represents" Islam)
I am not offended by such a posting. In fact, it actually gives me what I call a “teaching moment.”
This person calls me “ignorant” and they have every right to do so. I will not deny them that right. I would disagree, and here are my reasons:
A. The person assumes that I have a very limited knowledge of Islam. I would contend that assumption is incorrect. I have, for instance, read much of the Quran, the Islamic faith’s equivalent of the Christian Bible. I also have read many other writings on the history of Islam, the history of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of South Asia. All this has given me part of my perspective on the religion, which I hold is not necessarily “evil” or “bad”, no more than any other religion is. It does, however, have some what I call “disturbing” tenets which call for violence against non-believers.
B. The person seems to be laboring under the impression that I have never sat down with some of the Islamic religion and had a discussion about the differences from the Judeo-Christian background I was raised in (my grandfather that I knew and lived with and gave me my first Bible was a Congregationalist minister and missionary). Again, an incorrect assumption. I had the pleasure of having lengthy discussions with a man my parents were assisting in his studies at a private college in California. This gentleman, and he truly was a gentle man, was – according to his story – the minister of secondary education in Afghanistan and a tutor to the king’s son at that time. He taught me a little about his language and about Arabic, the language of Islam, as well as about Afghanistan and sparked my interest later to spend a considerable time studying the history of South Asia in college. But fast forward almost 30 years; I was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for more than half a year in 1990-1991. Granted, I was in the service of the United States Army, but I was not off on some isolated desert base. No, I was living and working among Muslims, representing many different countries. They will tell I was a curious American. I was always asking them if they could find me a good English version of the Quran (none did, although I finally was able to download one off the Internet) and I would take every opportunity to engage them in conversations that involved their religion, their customs and culture. I spent many hours in conversation with the Saudi Bedouin prayer leader at a business I visited weekly for three months while I waited for projects I was overseeing to be completed. I also shared green tea and conversation with the Lebanese businessman who owned the printing press where the newspaper I was editor of for the US Army was printed. I learned a lot from these encounters. Then, while I was in Kuwait for two weeks, I again had many encounters with local people with whom I had interesting discussions.
So, I don’t consider myself fluent in all the facets of Islam, I am conversant enough to hold what I feel are valid opinions on the subject. I also would point out that the Saudis, as the custodians of The Two Holy Mosques, do play a major role in Islam.
Now, the teaching moment: It is not wise to assume when you don’t know. This person, who did not identify their self, leaves me wondering whether or not they are a Muslim? I have no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing really what country they are from.
I do have a first impression of this person: They are not very polite. I would not call him ignorant. I have no way of knowing whether he has the knowledge base to be able to qualify him to not be ignorant, but I am not going to call ignorant, because I don’t know. However, I do know that being rude is not one of the tenets of Islam.
That is one of the problems we have in the world: People making assumptions. Assumptions, more often than not, turn out to be wrong.
A second problem is that we tend to make things personal. Rather than point out where I have erred, rather than take the time to show me why this person’s perception of the world is more accurate than mine, the person merely tells me I am ignorant. Wrong answer.
Now, I have pointed out many times in my posts that I happen to believe that people are not monolithic. That just because a person is (A), then all people are (A). That I think would be a very silly position to take.
I do think that most people do share a desire to survive and live a more comfortable life, if possible. I also believe most people would rather do it with less effort rather than more. Note that I said “most people”. When you are dealing with people, all are unique individuals (except maybe identical twins, but even then their life experiences are different and unique), and therefore you are not dealing with absolutes.
Now, I agree that probably the majority of those who profess to be Muslims are basically like most other people in their desires and don’t really give a rat’s behind about what other people think or believe. It doesn’t affect them.
However, there seems to be a substantial subset that does not have a willingness to be tolerant of the peculiarities of others who may happen to believe differently than they do. We see this when we see riots across the Muslim world when some obscure Christian minister of a small church in Florida announces he plans to burn the Quran as part of his worship service. Now, that was not limited to the Arabian peninsula or North Africa or even just South Asia.
Then there was the riots set off by the publication in a Danish periodical of caricatures of Mohammad, the Islamic prophet who plays the same role for Muslims as Jesus plays for Christians. Those weren’t just limited to Saudi Arabia or some Arab country.
The Muslim author Salmun Rushdie faces a death sentence because he wrote a book that was a satire about some of the parts of the Islamic religion.
We see this when Muslims all over the place react violently when some soldiers disposing of paper materials on an Afghan base burn some Qurans.
I can not visit Mecca or Medina, but Muslims can visit Jerusalem or Rome or London or just about any city in the U.S.
And now the Saudi government seems intent on making insulting the faith a criminal offense.
These things distress me, not because ALL Muslims believe that way, but with more than a billion adherents, even if it is just .01 percent who believe absolutely that infidels should die, then that would make up a very large body of people.
Granted, the Christian church has its extremists as well, and I believe these “cults” should be denounced and treated with disdain, but that does not excuse the need for Islam to come to an accommodation that lets it adherents accept without malice those who believe in a different view of God.
Enough rambling. Via Con Dios and Enshallah..

Update on Islam and reformation

Ok, sometimes I don’t get things quite right. When I did the bit on Islam needing a reformation, I toyed with also arguing that it also needed to undergo a corresponding period of the Western world’s Enlightenment that followed the Reformation but that would have made it a bit more tedious to understand and explain. I should have taken the plunge and included it.

As it is, another person wrote a much more coherent piece than I did on why Islam needs both a Reformation AND an Enlightenment period (http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/islam-reformation). His article points out that Islam in a sense is already embroiled in its Reformation (about time, can we speed it up and get to the Enlightenment now). I just hope it doesn’t take another three or four centuries of conflict and war for them to get the message on tolerance, acceptance and compromise.

Islam needs a reformation

http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-law-against-insulting-islam-153013387.html

The Saudi Arabians are supposedly considering a law against insulting Islam. I have no doubt it will pass.

Is it a good thing? Ask an American if they should pass a law against insulting any religion and most of them will hop up on their soapbox and rattle off something about the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution. So, understand, that we Americans come from a tradition that the state doesn’t formally recognize any particular religion or sect and forbids its lawmakers respecting, or favoring, any singular denomination, sect or faith. It has worked pretty good for us so far.

Now, there are those in the US who would like to outlaw various and sundry “fundamentalist” groups, or evangelical groups, or obnoxious groups that go door-to-door seeking to convert you to their particular religion. Others find various sects views to be obnoxious and seek to denigrate them … and probably would issue a “shoot on sight” order if it was left up to them. Such is the case with the religion of Islam.

This, unfortunately, is because many Americans do not understand Islam but sometimes I don’t think a lot of Muslims understand their own religion … but that is ok because a whole lot of Christians don’t understand their own sect/denomination church doctrine.

Still, I have long contended that Islam, like Christianity, definitely needs to undergo a “reformation.” You see, about 500 years ago, the Western version of the Christian Church represented by the Roman Catholic Church, which already had undergone its Shi’a/Sunni split with the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church even earlier, had a crisis.

It seems this Catholic Priest in Germany by the name of Martin Luther didn’t understand why the Roman Church was doing a lot of the things that it was doing. He listed his questions in the form of 95 statements and nailed them to a church door. Being the clever guy that he was, he also sent them to a local printer and had the document mailed throughout Europe. (That is the quick and easy version of a much more involved story). Anyway, Luther’s challenge to the Holy See in Rome didn’t go over very well and thus started what became known as “The Reformation.”

The Reformation basically was the reexamining of church doctrines but various and sundry literate people who thought deeply about faith, and religion, and theology came up with their own ideas and agendas. As a result, a whole host of protesters of the Roman Catholic way of doing things arose. These people became known generically as “Protestants” although few followed the same dogma.

As a result of the Reformation, the church changed, its relation to the state changed and, surprising enough (after several centuries of warfare) the relation between the various denominations changed to the current relative tolerance of differing views. Heck, modern Christians at least won’t kill you or burn you at the stake if you don’t profess to believe in their particular sect.

The religion of Islam needs to undergo a similar transformation. As it stands now, basically, if you are Sunni, if is off with the heads of Shi’a. If you are Shi’a, its off with the heads of Sunni. If you anybody else, it is off with your head unless you convert … or at least admit you are second class and submit to Islamic rules … your rules be damned. Now, I admit that is a bit extreme in the portrayal of Islam. It does have its softer side, but mostly that only extends to friends of the family and other believers.

Throughout the last 1300 years, Muslims basically have normally given non-Moslems a simple choice: Convert or die. Not always the best way to influence people and win friends, but it does the job rather effectively.

Unfortunately, we are still seeing that dynamic at work with the Jihadis who really don’t like Jews, Christians or anything to do with the semi-secular West that, to them, is the epitome of what immorality looks like.

Now, if we could somehow engineer a “reformation” among the Muslims, without of course the three or four centuries of warfare, and have them arrive at some new vision of Islam that would allow for the other religions of the world to exist without threatening to chop off everybody else’s head, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

But then I remember the Protestants and the Catholics in North Ireland haven’t really reconciled totally yet and my progressive friend out West says he just wants to shoot all the fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative, Bible-inerrancy believing Christians on sight (He gets rabid on the topic in his facebook posts).

Please tell there still is hope somewhere in the world. I so do want to believe.