The National Exam
January 10, 2008
February 17, 2006
Gumbel: So This is Where My Foot Belongs
By Craig
It took ten days for the world to know that Bryant Gumbel really stuck his foot in his mouth. Ten days! And to be honest, when I looked up "Gumbel + Winter Olympics", I was only met with bloggers talking about this story. Now explain to me how there is no liberal bias?
For those who have not be able to catch what Bryant said on Feb 7, read below,
"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who donÂt like them and wonÂt watch them ... Because theyÂre so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the worldÂs greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that somethingÂs not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in whatÂs called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day theyÂre done, when we can move on to March Madness  for GodÂs sake, let the games begin."
To be honest, this last part came among many other reasons that actually were rooted in significance. But where does this idea need to be advanced? WasnÂt it just two years ago my man Rush was kicked off an ESPN Sunday football preview show the very next day after making racial based comments? Yet, 10 days after Gumble uttered his words, it finally is brought to attention. Which also causes me to ask, is anyone watching this show?
LimbaughÂs comments, although not intended to be a shot at McNabb but rather the media was obviously misguided. But on the ESPN show, it is live; ESPN could not edit it out. HBO had that luxury, and chose to turn a blind eye to the comments.
But did he not only take a shot at the athletes of the Winter Olympics (There are actualathletesk atheletes in the Torino), but he could not help but getting in a crack shot at Republicans. The latter was probably the biggest reason why the media chose to ignore this issue but instead focus on VP Cheney and an accidental hunting accident, which took place five days later.
So here is a list of the five United States black athletes at the Winter Olympics:
Shani Davis, Speedskating
Vonetta Flowers, Bobsled
Aaron Parchem, Figure Skating
Bill Schuffenhauer, Bobsled
Randy Jones, Bobsled
To be honest, I really don't care what Gumbel has said, and to be honest, he does have a point about it being dominated by whites. But to bring in the GOP and to disparage athletes simply because blacks do not choose to concentrate in this area of athletics as not being the ÂworldÂs greatest athletesÂ, is uncalled for. Perhaps now, after those comments, he kind finally get that street cred he has been looking for.
Tags: Bryant Gumbel , 2006 Winter Olympics , Dick Cheney
Continued... ¶ 9:26 PM 2 comments links to this post
February 10, 2006
Us Vs. Them?
By CraigHas it really come down to this? Can it be so black and white now? Can the world finally come down to the next big battle over religion? As long as you haven't been hibernating with the bears, I am sure your asking the same questions. The events of the past two weeks have certainly brought the world's attention that this could be a Us vs. Them scenario.
Last week, a cartoonist in Denmark published a cartoon mocking Muhammed, the founder of Islam. The rage that it has started is beyond belief. There have been riots not just in Middle Eastern nations, but in Europe, in SE Asia, and in North America. This cartoon has far-reaching effects.
But it isn't just people who are outraged, but entire nations. But it goes beyond being just upset, the riots and the danger they present are astounding. Although King Abdullah of Jordan recently condemned these acts of aggression while on his visit to the White House, they still seem to be spiraling out of control.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and the leaders of Palestine have been calling for military retaliation against not only Denmark, but also the United States. I have seen images from network news showing Muslims burning flags. And the flags seem to be Denmark, Israel, and America. They act as if America had a direct hand in the cartoon itself.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but on the horizon I see a definitive problem. Muslims are pushing the world into a Us vs. Them stance. Although President Bush has taken a hard stance (as well as Tony Blair and a select few leaders), I feel as though some Muslims are pushing all nations to decide which side of the fence they choose. There is no longer a buffer between friends and enemies.
If saddens me that in the day of openness and technology that binds the world together, that we still have to define ourselves as Us vs. Them. But heed this warning, with Middle Eastern countries choosing terrorists as ruling parties, and hardline leaders such as in Iran, there will be a division, and that division will be deep.
Tags: Mohammed cartoon , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , Islam
Continued... ¶ 12:41 PM 2 comments links to this post
January 29, 2006
The Boy Crisis Revisited
by CraigNewsweek has a very interesting article in its January 30, 2006 issue. On the front cover was the title, "The Boy Crisis". The story that followed was more than just a good read, it was terribly concerning.
I wasn't concerned that women have made such monumental achievements in education, now taking up '56 percent of college campuses versus the 42 percent just thirty years ago'. Thirty years ago, my mother was going to college to attempt to have choices in their life; whether to stay home and raise a family or work in a career. Her generation's parents thought it was a good idea in order for the young women to find a nice, educated, and financially sound husband. Lucky for everyone, the women knew better. But how have we gone from that time to this?
I think it is an institutional issue of education. And underlying that, it deals quite extensively the differences between boys and girls; not just physically but also emotionally and physiologically. Peg Tyre nails this disparity when she says,
"In elementary-school classrooms - where teachers increasingly put an emphasis on language and a premium on sitting quietly and speaking in turn the mismatch between boys and girls can become painfully obvious. 'Girl behavior becomes the gold standard,' says Raising Cain coauthor [Michael] Thompson. 'Boys are treated like defective girls."
That sort of thinking is dangerous. There is no way that boys and girls can always be treated as the same, equals yes, but not the same. Society should learn to embrace the differences between the sexes and realize the effectiveness of such differences. With school cutbacks, Physical Education and recess has become extinct. The physical release that this time allowed boys in school to burn off energy is now gone. There is a reason why girls played "house" and boys tumbled around; they differ in their needs.
When we micromanage boys and separatet into seperate parts coming together but as one part, we lose a little about ourselves, our development, our future. As quoted before, there are more women on college campuses then men today. But is that because men are lagging behind in school, or because more men are choosing to go to work right after high school than continue their education? Are more women going to college because they feel that is what they are "supposed" to do? Are more women going to pass the years by until they get married as the median age to marry for women was 21.9 years old. Ta lot are still alot of questions to be answered, but it must start with the dissemination of boys and girls.
Tags: Newsweek
Continued... ¶ 3:24 PM 0 comments links to this post
January 24, 2006
Eminent Domain Causes Eminent Problems
By CraigLast year the Supreme Court made a ruling that I knew was going to be trouble. Although some news stations covered, and pundits tried to beat it to death, I don't feel the true message about what just happened ever truly struck home with the American public. What ruling you may wonder? The Property Seizures ruling that allowed local government to take at will privately owned property and use it for their own use.
Now the law is actually not all that new. Almost all railroads, highways, and interstates all dealt with eminent domain. And for those issues, I understand how they can benefit all the public by the sheer use those modes of transportation. Back on June 23, 2005 when the Justices Affirm[ed] Property Seizures, they effectively said that local government always knows the most effective way to use the land on which you live or own. Therefore, since they know more than you, you are forced to surrender your private property.
There was some outrage when the ruling was handed down, but nearly enough for exactly what this would mean. In fact, I heard very little from anyone locally. Well now the issue has hit the town flat in the face. This past week, the Evansville City Government started their tyrannical use of force in adding private properties on the riverfront onto the Redevelopment Acquisition list.
The City of Evansville as well as the Supreme Court defend this ruling by saying that this allows "urban revitalization". Although eminent domain only satisfies the Fifth Amendment by allowing seizures for public use only, they claim that by revitalizing a part of a town or city, that it will bring jobs, which is a public use. But, that isn't a public use, that is a private use. Giving people work through the city is public use, not taking someone's private property, selling it to a company, and allowing them to do what they want with it, hiring who they want.
So what is the real reason this ruling came from the Supreme Court, and why was is it so sought after? Taxes. By building bigger buildings, increasing employment in that one area, but adding companies that would probably not be located there, the city increases their tax revenue. So since you are a private citizen and are pretty much tapped in the amount of tax you can pay, the city can remove you and tax someone else. Looks like the Supreme Court certainly had the constitution in mind when they made that ruling!
This is a dangerous ruling. In essence, although I may be dramatizing this a tad, what is to stop the local government to come to my neighborhood, decide that a mall would bring more jobs and more tax dollars to this area, and force all the residents to leave their homes? There isn't. Given their reasoning for this ruling, public use applies. The Shriner's here in town are the first victim. I just hope they do a better job of fighting this transgression better than the people in New London, CT.
Note: To view the article in the Courier and Press, you will need to sign up, but I recommend the time.
Tags: Eminent Domain , Supreme Court , Evansville, IN
Continued... ¶ 7:45 PM 2 comments links to this post
December 01, 2005
Pope "Out"laws Gays
Pope Benedict XVI has only been the chief pontiff for seven months, but he is wasting no time in ruling. He has been a controversial figure since he was selected, and from what we have seen, has no intention of denying that charge. On November 29, 2005, the Pope ruled that homosexuality would not be tolerated in the Catholic Church.Not being Catholic, I can only muse from the outside of this long-standing religion. But at the same time, the debates that rage on within it's confines have become much more visible for all. The recent child molestation and abuse scandal that has gripped Americans for all of 5 years has opened the church to more critical debate, and may be the reason that prompted the new decree.
Just hours after the new ruling, moderates in the UK were somewhat pleased with the ruling. The actual ruling from the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that'
"[O]rdination was not permissible for men with Âdeep-seated gay tendencies but was permissible for those who could show they had overcome Âtransitory homosexuality for three years. It does not apply to those already ordained."
The fact that this ruling did completelyetly ban gays from the church, or the preisthood, was taken as somewhat good news due to the fact that Pope Benedict has used phrases to describe homosexuality as a Âtendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil while head of the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To further explain the ruling The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy OÂConnor explained that in this ruling,
ÂThe instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood. But it is making clear that they must be capable of affective maturity, have a capacity for celibacy and not share the values of the eroticised gay culture. This is especially important because seminaries are all-male environments.Â
But not everyone was as optimistic. Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group OutRage!, said it was Âbigoted and hypocriticalÂ. He said:
ÂÂIf these ruleshad existed in the past, many existing archbishops and cardinals would have never been allowed to enter the priesthood. Given the high proportion of gay clergy in senior positions in the Vatican, this new policy is rank hypocrisy.
ÂGiven that about a third of Catholic clergy in Britain are gay, the new rules are [a] goal that could result in hundreds of churches being left without priests.Â
What is this guy thinking? Does he actually believe that requiring those men who wish to be priests to simply prove that they have forsaken sex, of any and all kinds, is outlandish? Tatchell believes that instead of attacking gays, the church should take a harder line on those who molest children. How can anybody not see that molesting children and being gay are in no way even close to being related? The reason nothing has been handed down about the child molestation cases is that it seems obvious that this should not happen, but with homosexuality, the line is not so clear. This ruling is just trying to darken that line for all to see.
But for those in America, don't worry too much, because nothing can get passed some wacko comment from our own. 'The Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group based in the US, said gays were being used as scapegoats . . .'We urge them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbor treated this way,' the group said." What a great way to twist the words of a man you reject anyway. Let me tell you what Jesus would do, although I am sure you think you already know. Jesus was a man of the people. He loved to congregate and dwell among the least of these. He would not forsaken those who wish to follow him, but at them same time, he wound not accept all that they did.
The most famous of stories that I can use for comparison, although I know it may be far fetched, is that of Nicodemus. The tax collector Nicodemus wanted to be a part of the crowd to see Jesus as he came through town. Jesus spotted Nicodemus and asked to take party with him. This surprised all the people as Nicodemus was well hated and the people could not believe that Jesus would choose to spend time with a man that could be so cruel. But he did. Not because he shared the same passions, but simply because he wanted Nicodemus to know that he cared. Although it is not known if Nicodemus quit his tax collection, but it is clear that Jesus did not condone his activities, but simply love his neighbor for who he was, a living creature.
I think this ruling will be hotly contested in years to come. As moderates give way to radicals, debate will heat up. But for now, this is what the church needs to reclaim its strength in the world. For speaking purely in religious terms, acts of homosexuality is considered a sin. But being a homosexual is not. I try to live by the motto that you should love the person but not always love their actions. So to the question posed by The Human Rights Campaign, I believe that is what Jesus would do.
by Craig
TAGS: Pope Benedict , Time Magazine , Newsweek , Catholics Gay
Continued... ¶ 5:58 PM 0 comments links to this post
November 21, 2005
This Is What We Get To Listen To?
I was awoken Thursday morning, November 10th much like every morning. My clock radio went off at 6:30, alerting me to the upcoming day. And much like every morning, I either listen to the local radio station, or turn on the TV to catch up. This day, I choose to listen to the local radio station personalities, and what I hear has not sat well with me for days.The radio was tuned to Hot 96 WSTO out of Evansville. The morning personalities of Booker and Sarah were on like normal. Booker usually has some wisecrack to say and some topic he chooses to discuss, while Sarah tries her best to act cute. For me on that day, it was anything but.
It was only three days after the horrific and terrifying tornado has swept through the area, killing 25 people. Many of people has visited the hardest hit areas, some news, a lot of police, and even politicians. Governor Mitch Daniels, Sen. Evan Bayh, Democratic hopeful for 2006 congressional seat Brad Ellsworth, but to that date, no John Hostettler, the area's Republican Represenative in the U.S. Congress.
He had made a statement that although he was to be in the area the coming weekend, we would not be able to tour the damage.
That statement apparently offended radio personality Booker, because he went on a dia-tribe for about 10 minutes about how bad a guy Hostettler was/is, how much he should be there, how he is turning his back on his constituents, and more. Sarah added her pithy comments where she could.
But guess what, a local reporter with Fox 7 found out something many did not know. Hostettler was helping the tornado victims by actually working and picking up debris, he just choose to turn away from the spotlight. And how did the reporter, Chris Williams find out? Hostettler ended up at his house Saturday morning cleaning up debris with a local church when Williams' father found about Hostettler's presence. Williams found out that he had been as the mobile home park that had been destroyed on Friday and was working in Newburgh on Saturday. The only people that knew were the local church and the Courier and Press which agree to keep the event private.
Hostettler's publicist said that, "Congressman Hostettler and his wife were volunteering privately and for purposes of publicity."(Courier and Press) Hostettler said himself in a interview with local TV station WFIE that' "The governor . . . asked for a state of emergency; and that was done. And while some turned it into a photo op[Sen. Evan Bayh], we tried to do what we could as fast as we could to turn around that situation."(Courier and Press)." Because of Hostettler's presence at Congress instead of interfering with recovery efforts, the federal money available to those suffering lost was approved in three days. But then again, a picture is worth a thousand words, but does it really help anyone?
To this date, I have heard no such apology from the morning personalities from 96 WSTO, but to be fair, I haven't had that much desire to hear their babble anyways. People will always have their opinions, and there is nothing wrong with being a free thinker. But when you have a position that you can affect a great number of an audience, and persuade their feelings, it is better to think before you speak. Booker's comments that morning were rude and unjustified. He could have mentioned that he thought it wrong that Hostettler had not made plans to visit, but save judgment until after the weekend was over. Unlike Booker, some people choose not to have the spotlight on them all the time.
It is unfortunate that our politicians are not allowed the opportunity to do good deeds without a media presence hovering over. To me, it cheapens the experience a little. How can we be certain they are doing it because it is the right thing to do, or because they just earned 5 percentage points in the polls. Much debate has raged on about Bush and 9/11, but at that event, and with him such a high-profile person, it is hard to sneak out of the camera's eye. Bayh choose not to duck the camera, but then again, Bayh has a presidential run to prepare for, and devastation always brings the best poll numbers.
By Craig
Tags: Evansville Tornado , Evan Bayh , John Hostettler , FOX 7NEWS , WFIE 14 , Evansville Courier and Press
Continued... ¶ 7:00 PM 0 comments links to this post
November 11, 2005
Merci Frances
By CraigAs I am quite sure you are aware, a lot has happened in France over the past two weeks. Massive rioting has taken place throughout the country, and even spilling into neighboring ones. As of the writing of this post, Chirac had ordered a curfew, and order was attempting to be restored. But these events can have a deep impact on the lessons that can be learned from this occurrence. The questions are, what are they, and did we learn them?
From what I have gathered, the riots started concerning the questionable death of a Muslim youth in France. The disenfranchised Muslims began rioting against what they felt was behavior from the French police and government as oppressive. Last year, the French government signed into law that women, mainly Muslim women, could no longer wear scarves. And this event may have just thrown salt on an open wound.
The real problem is not the scarf issue or even the questionable death, but the disenfranchisement of such a large population of people who live in France. Notice I didn't say French people, because the mobs of people who are rioting are not French citizens, but people who are merely living in France. There is nothing wrong with living in France, but when such a large group of likeminded individuals congregate in the same place without any recourse of being on the same page as the rest of the nation's citizens, a guaranteed problem is to arise.
Other countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Great Britain were said to have minor riots take place as well. However, these countries were not as polarized as France and also were said to take precautions earlies. France and other countries may have to reevaluate their policies toward other nationals living in their borders as Kevin Costelloe reports in European Governments May Alter Policies in Wake of French Riots, published with Bloomberg.com.
So let's assume that the disenfranchisement was the problem. How did this disenfranchisement come to pass? Well, some say that the lack of social integration may be to blame. Without assimilating those people who choose to live in your borders, they feel no respect to the country. If you handcuff that to the fact that social insurance programs were handed out as well, not only were they able to breed their contempt of the nation that they lived, but were done so on the countries tab. France kept them fed, clothed and healthy, with absolutely nothing asked for in return.
America must be careful in its handling of social programs. I am not here to give the benefits and draw backs of such programs at this time, but simply point out the amount of immigrants living in the country that have no intention of becoming US citizens. America was founded on immigrants, and to be honest I hope that continues to be a great position of American values, to accept people. But those people who came to America were eager to start a new life, with a new nation and respect the nation for what it could offer. They were happy to assimilate themselves into American culture and help make it strong. To defend it's borders, and to help it become financially strong. But many immigrants today do not seek the same.
Today's war on terror is also a determining factor. France does not support the war in Iraq, their way of appeasement on the Muslims in the Middle East, and the people they had their hand out feeding, bit them, hard! America has been a staunch proponent of war, and although the many Muslims here in America say they are happy and do not seek any retaliation on the government or people living here, what have we done to guarantee their loyalty to this nation? The millions of illegal aliens from place like Mexico, what have we done to guarantee their assimilation.? Why do constantly continue to let these illegals come across the border? These are the questions that must be posed following the French riots.
Just like Katrina made apparent our lack of National Disastor and Recovery preparedness, the riots in France need to make apparent the potential disaster that could be simmering today in other Western Culture nations. So yes, thank you France, for showing us all that simply living next to someone does not mean that person or family thinks the same about the country you live in a you.
Tags: French Riots , Muslims , Social Programs , Bloomberg.com , Political Gateway
Continued... ¶ 12:57 PM 1 comments links to this post
November 09, 2005
Pundits Abound
First I want to apologize for being away so long. Due to some circumstances that I could not control, this took a back burner. But things are going better, and I am ready to tackle this crazy world again. So without much pause, let's do it.I want to talk about something that I have been spending more time thinking about. There seems to be a lot of people on television, on the radio, in the newspapers and even down at the local watering hole giving all types of political commentary. It seems that the whole some of pundits, or at least those with a stage to express their opinions, has grown quite large.
Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio, with a short-lived television show, for over 15 years now. Others such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram all speak for the Republican cause. Recently, Air America, which sought out to share their democratic views, was started with Al Franken the most notable. Of course, there also exists Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes and others on the television screen.
With all this bombardment of information they give us, with all their opinions pieces and analyzation, a bell sounded in my head. How do these guys/gals know what they are talking about? They may have crews that research, they may do it themselves. But often times, I really feel that they simply take a ounce of truth, and stretch it for an hour.
Now, am I saying this is bad? Not at all, in fact it helps spur real debate in our country which is something I believe the founding fathers strongly desired. The issue as it occurs to me is that these people, all listed above, are only uttering facts and interpretations they want you to hear.
The big term that Conservative talk show hosts like to say about Liberals is that they drink the "kool-aid" being sent down their party. But to be honest, so do Conservatives. So who is right and who is wrong? Who is merely and instrument of a party and a intregal part of a bigger picture?
The answer to each question is all of us. On the show The Situation with Tucker Carlson, there was a guest who has recently published a book about Al Franken entitled “Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears and Deceives” by Alan Skorski. Skorski provided a small snippet from his book regarding a time that Rush Limbaugh had mentioned on his show that the majority of those earning minimum wage were teenagers. Franken had told his audience that he had researched the Bureau of Labor Statistics about that claim and then told anyone that would hear that Limbaugh was wrong. Problem? The Skorski of this book contacted the Bureau of Labor Statistics and with their help actually found out what Limbaugh had said was true and Franken had misled his audience.
Now, does my contempt for Franken make that sweeter? Yeah, it does. But in the bigger picture, this is what I feel it means. The following discussion took place during the same segment on Carlson's show with Skorski;
[Franken] cited a credible source, used it to smear Rush Limbaugh. This is his modus operandi. He cites a credible source, distorts the data and then uses that to attack, whether it‘s Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O‘Reilly, that‘s what he does. Because people figure if you cite a credible source...
CARLSON: Right.
SKORSKI: ... you‘re not going to lie about them, because then they say, we never said that.
CARLSON: Right. Also, honestly, apart from you, Alan Skorski, who is going to call the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
SKORSKI: Exactly.
CARLSON: Not many people.
How many people would? That my friends, that is the root cause of the growing number of pundits. Who actually checks the facts? We just believe that since these people have a platform to speak, they must be right. Limbaugh was a sportscaster, Franken a comic. What makes them anymore qualified than you and I. In fact, in reading throughout the blogosphere, I would venture to say that many of you are more able to give analysis of the political thearte.
I have been a fan of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don't always like his leftist leaning views, but I like his style. We may get some of the facts right, most of them wrong, but at least we all laugh.
Tags: Pundits , Rush Limbaugh , Tucker Carlson , Al Franken .
Continued... ¶ 10:00 PM 0 comments links to this post
September 20, 2005
Allah or Jesus? By Rick Mathes
"Last month I [Rick Mathes] attended my annual training session that's required
for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the
Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their
belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic
Imam had to say.
The Imam
gave a great presentation of the basics of
Islam, complete with a
video.
After the presentations, time was
provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my
question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
understand that most Imams
and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad
[Holy war] against the
infidels of the world. And, that by killing an
infidel, which is a
command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in
heaven. If that's the
case,can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation,
he replied, "Non-believers!" . I responded, "So, let me make sure I
have
this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill
everyone
who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that
correct?"
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to
that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the
cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." I then stated, "Well,
sir, I
have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all
Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering
Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"
The Imam was
speechless.
I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend
when you and your
brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let
me ask
you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to
kill me
in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you
because I
am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"
You
could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. "
Now I don't know if this is true, but let us just for a moment assume it is. I think the Iman did Islam a great disservice. True, there is a jihad against infidels, but the definition the Iman gave was not totally correct. My understanding is that the world falls into three spheres; Islam, friends of Islam, and enemies of Islam.
Although the Iman said that all those that are not followers of Islam are infidels, that is not totally correct. If those unbelievers are friends of Islam, then they are not included in the jihad. The problem is, if you fall in the enemy sphere, it does not take into account indiviuality. America, consequently, falls into the sphere of enemies of Islam, even though Islam is fast growing in the nation.
So what does that mean? To me it seems that those fanatics who have overrun the religion of Islam are content to kill even their own believers. Islamic followers in America, at least the vast majority, do not hold America in the last sphere, but instead welcome the ability to freedom of worship. But how does their feelings of freedom extend to the fanatical leaders from the Middle East?
For those questions, I do not know. But it scares me that a religion can hold life in such low regard. I know that Chrisianity has had its dark days, and for that I am truly sorry, but at what time in history do people evolve past complete hatred? For my personal feeling, evil will always exist, hatred will always be bred. The only thing we can ask of ourselves is to try and not continue the level of hatred, but overcome it with strong efforts of combatedness. But those lessons are not easily contained in a list of "to do's".
The Muslim world is strong, and has great potential for great deeds. If only we could get the people who lead this religion to see their potential and forget about the hate.
Islam ; jihad ; religion
Continued... ¶ 7:58 AM 17 comments links to this post
