Terrorists in haystacks

“Terrorists do not wear a special uniform.. They are like other people, like other youths. They are not easy to recognize. Sometimes, finding a terrorist in the 14 million population of Tehran is like finding a needle — not in a haystack, but in 10 haystacks.”
Mahmoud Alavi, Iranian intelligence minister
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/world/middleeast/iran-kurds-terrorist-attacks.html

The Shia and Sunni differences have are similar to the Protestant/Catholic differences of Northern Ireland.  However, some Iranians take a more tolerant view of extremists.  For example, Jalal Jalalisadeh, a former member of the Iranian from Kurdistan takes a stance that many around the world could emulate.  Salafis are an ultra-conservative group in parts of Iran. “They were peaceful. As long as the Salafi groups are not taking arms, they must be tolerated,” ibid.

"A child killed in a bombing while eating ice cream in Baghdad is the same as child killed in a bombing while attending a pop concert in Manchester.”
Shasta Aziz, Globe and Mail, 2017-06-05
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/countering-extremism-requires-political-honesty-from-theresa-may/article35204868

Do not call terrorists Muslim or Islamic.  They are no more "Muslim" than the Ku Klux Klan is “Christian”

Cherry-picking religious texts to validate hate

Wisconsin Public Radio’s To the Best of Our Knowledge (TTBOOK) recently replayed an episode about building a new mosque in the Chicago area (http://www.ttbook.org/book/building-mosque-america).

One of the anti-mosque people quoted the Q’ran about killing idolators.  Knowing that Mohammed and his followers were constantly harassed by idol worshipers (who made a lot of money selling statures of idols, I knew there was a larger context.  Rather than offer my own explanation, I suggest you read “Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?” by Kabir Helminski, Huffington Post, 2010-09-24, updated 2011-05-25.

One could cherry-pick the Bible and show that Judaism is a religion of hate: “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” King James Bible, Deuteronomy 20:16.

History is filled with “Christians” who tortured and killed those they even suspected of not being Christian enough: Torquemada and the Spanish inquisition, burnings at the stake, and more.  Even in our recent history many who call themselves Christians feel no remorse in lynching or burning churches.

Buddhism is supposed to be a religion of peace, but “Buddhists” are killing Muslims in Burma and Sri Lanka.  Do you really think the Buddha would approve of such hateful actions?

The bogey man of Sharia law

A letter writer to the Duluth News Tribune claimed that the mayor of London, a Muslim, was banning “the use of women in public advertising.  See “US following England into Sharia law, http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/readers-views/4066431-readers-view-us-following-england-rule-sharia-law.

This seemed far-fetched to me and I tracked down the article about the London mayor’s action.  it was far different than the comments to a small snippet of the article that was published on a “conservative” web site.  All the commenters assumed the mayor was acting for far different reasons than plain, old-fashioned, everyday good taste.

You can find my response at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/readers-views/4072831-readers-view-sharia-law-claims-dont-pass-fact-check

BTW, how many of you are old enough when many “Christians” wanted Playboy banned from newsstands?

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?  If we go by Donald Trump’s logic, if someone from a particular group commits a crime, terrorism or otherwise, then all members of that group are guilty of the same crime.

Timothy McVeigh was one of the bombers of the Oklahoma City Federal Building; an attack that killed over 160 people.  He grew up as a Catholic.  Does that mean all Catholics could commit similar crimes?

Maybe we should expel all Southern Baptists.  After all, most of the Ku Klux Klan were upstanding members of their community and church by day, but when night came, they donned white sheets and hoods and terrorized black people for crimes real and imagined.

But how many Southern Baptists didn’t like the Ku Klux Klan and thought they were unchristian and dangerous?  Why didn’t they speak out?  Because they were afraid of retribution by the Klan?

Critics of Islam say that all Muslims should speak out against terrorism committed in the name of Islam.  I think many of these critics aren’t really listening to those who speak out.

How many of us speak out against all the injustices we know that exist around us?  Very few of us.  We have jobs and any number of activities that we would rather do than speak out.

“Don’t complain about the speck in your brother’s eye when you can’t see the beam in your own."

TRUTH or truth?

TRUTH is what some assert with certainty but with no coherent justification.  TRUTH cannot be challenged.

Truth is what people strive for with questions and tests; truth may never be fully achieved but enough has been discovered to offer a guide to life or improvement of lives.

One TRUTH is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  The truth is that the Bible offers many moral teachings even though it contains descriptions of many impossible events or even justifies bad deeds.

Did God on the sixth day create “man in his own image, … male and female created he them”?  Or did he create only Adam and then when Adam grew lonely, he created Eve from Adam’s rib.  I would think it would take more than a few days for Adam to grow lonely for a companion.

Is the “Great Flood” a recounting of some catastrophic flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in which some few had the foresight to build boats for their family and cattle, or was it a great flood to destroy all the “wickedness”, including babies?  Considering that the depth of the waters was 15 cubits (22-1/2 feet), it was probably the former.  Flood stages of over 20 feet are all too common even now.  The truth is that it is important to be just and that it is important to prepare for disaster.

Is it TRUTH that God let Satan bring many calamities upon Job, or is it truth that bad things happen to good people?  Certainly a just God would not let so many innocent people be killed to test one man, especially if God knows everything?

Is it TRUTH that heretics should be burned at the stake?  It is truth that the Bible only mentions “heretic” once.  “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Epistle to Titus, 3:10).  I don’t think “reject” meant to kill, but rather it meant to shun.

Is it TRUTH that Islam is a militant religion set on converting all to Islam?  It is truth that Mohammed and his followers had to defend themselves against the polytheists of Mecca who considered the Muslims a threat.  It is also truth that many Muslim-dominant cultures had a mix of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

“Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.” - Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand”.

The Sabeans were a culture in South Arabia; this is supposedly where the Queen of Sheba came from, she who visited King Solomon. 

You can get many versions of the Qur’an from the iBook store and other sources.  However, like the Bible, it takes much reading to understand what is meant.

Consider “simple” documents like the “Declaration of Independence” and the “Constitution”.

Is it TRUTH that they are clear and unambiguous?  It is truth that people are still arguing over them over two hundred years later.  It is truth that what one Supreme Court decides may be overturned by another Supreme Court? For example, “Separate but Equal” was overturned by “Brown vs. Board of Education”.

Is it TRUTH that the United States is a Christian nation blessed by God?  It is truth that many of the signers of the “Declaration of Independence” or the “Constitution of the United States” attended Christian Churches.  It is truth that the “Declaration of Independence” mentions “Nature’s God” and the “Protection of Divine Providence”.  But it is also truth that the “Constitution” uses no words or phrases involving any deity.  It is truth that the United States took land from Christian Cherokees and others because white men wanted the gold that was found in Georgia.  So much for the “Protection of Divine Providence” for these Christians.

Is it TRUTH that Adam Smith advocated totally free markets?  It is truth that he used “free market” once and only once in “Wealth of Nations”.  But it is also truth that the heavily regulated market was brought about by the woolen manufacturers.  They asked for and received from Parliament many regulations that would keep the price of wool down so that their costs would be down and their profits up.  It is also truth that even today “Free Marketers” lobby for laws that are beneficial to them and detrimental to others.

Is it TRUTH that voters “decided”?  By the time you read this, the Iowa caucuses will have been held.  It is truth that many voters cast their votes for whoever “won”, but many other voters chose somebody else.  It is truth that better headlines would be that “a plurality of voters” or “a majority of voters” supported the “winner”.

It is also truth that no matter who is doing the reporting, they have a limited amount of time or space.

It is also truth that this column should end before you fall asleep.

Also published in Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2016-02-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/04/6677_truth_or_truth.

Quote from “ISIS war on Christmas”

Quote from “ISIS war on Christmas” by Kamel Daoud:

"One might counter that of the two groups, only Muslim extremists kill. Which is true, at least when it comes to people. But the extremists of the right kill humanism, and that’s the only thing that could save us all."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/opinion/isis-war-on-christmas.html

For more background on Algeria and Daoud, see “Stranger Still, Kamel Daoud and Algeria, caught between Islamist fervor and cultural flowering”, by Adam Shatz.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/magazine/stranger-still.html.

There really are only two religions

What? You think there are dozens of major religions and thousands of sects within them.  That may be true when you consider that many people believe in a long list of do’s and don’ts that are peculiar to their particular “religion”.  But if you look beyond the creeds and admonitions, you will find that are only two basic belief systems: generosity to others and narrow systems of “we are right and you are wrong”.  And all the major religions have many generous believers and far too many hateful believers.

In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ.  Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor.   Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.

These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.

We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims.  He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”.  John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books.  His crime: denying the Holy Trinity.  The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.

On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity.  The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement.  Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War.  Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India.  Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.

Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity.  Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir.  If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad.  There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.

Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries.  Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades.  We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence.  Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques.  Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence.  Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state).  Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.

An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge.  This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.

I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace.  Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m.  One of these words is “salaam” for peace.  Hm,  close to the Hebrew “shalom”.

Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam.  The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.

One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross.  I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.

Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 

Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school.  Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.

Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.  The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor.  These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.

We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists.  “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings.  Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing.  Think of the “King of Siam”.  The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims.  Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon.  The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century.  In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king.  Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps.  There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.

Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama.  A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace.  He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.

If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry.  But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”.  I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future.  With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.

Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions

Bombs away!

No, I don’t mean drop bombs from an airplane.  I mean bombs go away, bombs never to be used again.  Let’s get rid of nuclear weapons, drone bombers, conventional bombs, cannons, and all other weapons that indiscriminately kill bad people as well as good people.

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

From Bob Dylan’s web site at  http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/blowin-wind

Unfortunately, the answer is not blowing in the wind from the mouths of politicians around the world.  They blow out phrases like “defense”, “saving jobs”, and “gun rights”.

We should ask “defense of what”?  Defense of the right to tell other people how to live?  Defense from dictators?  Strange, we are allies with lots of dictators, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Oh, but they are “our” dictators, not “their” dictators.  Defense from Communism?  Communism as a label is all but dead.  “Communism” in China is just a label for another dictatorship that is withering away.  “Communism” in North Korea is a name for a paranoid dictatorship.  Our “defense” against North Korea only serves to feed the paranoia.

Another paranoid quasi-dictatorship is Russia.  But consider the historical reason for its paranoia.  The Mongols invaded, the French invaded, the Germans invaded twice, and now the alliance that was built as defense against the Soviet Union keeps expanding, feeding the paranoia of not only Vladimir Putin, but many ordinary Russians.  Of course, it doesn’t help the alliance that Putin’s given name contains the Russian words for lord and world.

If we are so interested in “saving jobs”, we should never have instituted Prohibition.  Think of how many bartenders, servers, distillers, and brewers lost their jobs.  Prohibition did help the gun industry, guns for both the bootleggers and for the police.

Do we want to “save jobs” at the cost of lives far, far away?  How many wedding guests should die because somebody up in the sky decided the guests were “terrorists”?  How many hospitals must be destroyed because enemy combatants were believed to be hiding there?  Interesting, the “enemy combatants” live in the country; the bombers are from a country far, far away.

I didn’t know guns had “rights”.  As far as protection in case of a terrorist attack, would more people die because some of the target group had weapons?  John pulls out a gun to shoot the terrorists.  Mary sees John with a gun in his hand and thinking he is a terrorist, shoots him.  Even the police have a hard time shooting the terrorists.  And the police get wounded and killed.  Major Hassan at Fort Hood wounded and downed a police officer who had excellent scores in marksmanship.  Her partner managed to wound Hassan enough to get him to stop shooting.

Maybe the better idea is to keep military-style weapons in armories and not make them easily available to the general public.  Many seem to have forgotten that we had armories to keep the more deadly weapons away from the general public but available to the militia in case of insurrection.

Another better idea is to use propaganda instead of bombs.

Instead of attacking Israel, Palestinian protesters should fly children’s balloons over Israel.  Each balloon would carry a slip of paper with the words of Hillel in Hebrew: “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.”

Instead of burying Daesh terrorists in bomb debris, bury them in pamphlets: “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)

And of course, the “bomb them back to the Stone Age” bloviators who claim to be “Christian” should receive letters from their constituents: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12

I am surprised that Iran didn’t use this latter quotation with those negotiating to stop Iran’s nuclear capacity.  All the nuclear-armed negotiators except the Chinese purport to be Christians.  If the negotiating countries didn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, shouldn’t Iran have proposed some schedule for these “nuclear powers” to eliminate their nuclear weapons?

Maybe the only answer is for a peace coalition to be formed in the United Nations.  It could start with countries without militaries, like Iceland and Costa Rica.  This coalition could offer a time table for the elimination of nuclear weapons, then of massive navies, then of bombs, then of armies.

Impossible?  Improbable?  Maybe!  Consider that Europe had a very vicious war, with many, many civilian deaths on both sides, seventy years ago.  The Cold War ended twenty-four years ago.  And a country divided by that war is now a major player on the world stage.

The answer my friend is blowing in your votes!

Who are the bigger fools? Daesh or Islamophobes?

I would say that it is the Islamophobes, especially those who attack individuals just because they look Muslim.  See “'I’m frightened’ after Attacks in Paris, New York Muslims Cope with a Backlash".  Even a Latino was attacked.

Hey, folks, these victims did nothing to you, but you are indirectly creating more recruits for Daesh!  The victims of Islamophobic attacks probably have no thoughts of lashing back at the people the attackers purport to represent, but these attacks are going to make the marginalized more open to the nonsense spewed by Daesh: Christianity is at war with Islam.  And dear Islamophobe, your attacks are not very Christian!

Are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?

One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms.  The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”.  Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.

What’s this Daesh?  It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS).  Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead.  One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow.  Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.

Look at this another way.  Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity.  By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.

Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh.  See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day).  The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark.  It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.

Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?  Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam.  The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians.  As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.

But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?

In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire.  It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender.  Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace.  In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle.  That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier.  Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army.  Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.

Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country.  That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.

These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.

First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country.  The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe.  The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons.  Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner.  Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”

The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power.  It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.

Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government.  The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe.  That fight still goes on.

Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding.  However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country.  The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.

Out of this chaos has come Daesh.  Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region?  A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”

Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East.  Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh?  These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh.  They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees.  But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh

Bombs only lead to more bullets

In response to the attacks in Paris, many countries are ready to bomb more ISIS territory even more than they already have.  This may work against standing armies, but will it work against a constant recruiting machine that uses the bombing to show how "Islam is under attack."

Put another way: drone bombers create more drone soldiers.

A much better strategy would be dropping leaflets with Koranic verses of charity and forgiveness.  Just like some "Christians" select verses from the Bible to justify punitive actions against those that disagree with them, there are "Muslims" who select verses from the Koran to justify their punitive actions.  Just like many real Christians select verses from the Bible to lead a life of charity, there are Muslims who select verses from the Koran to lead a life of charity.

What would be the costs of millions of leaflets of Koranic verses of charity versus the costs of hundreds of bombs?  Being bopped on the head by a dropped book may change a lot more minds than being bopped on the head by a dropped bomb.

Religion and morality

George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address that one cannot have morality without religion.

I disagree.

You don't need a god to make you ethical,
But the "wrong" god can make you unethical.

Throughout history, people have killed other because their "god" justified it.

We have ISIS killing those who don't believe as they do, and we had Torquemada of the Spanish inquisition torturing and killing those who would not believe as he did.

The perfect test for “blasphemy”

A Saudi blogger has already suffered fifty lashes for "blasphemy" by asking for more discussion of religion in Saudi Arabia.  But can his accusers really know that he has committed "blasphemy" against Allah or that he is only disturbing their world view?

I propose the following test of blasphemy.

If a person is accused of blasphemy, he or she should be staked out just after sundown on a clear night in a field that is at least one hundred feet from any structure.  If the person has actually insulted Allah, then Allah will send a lightning bolt to kill or injure the "blasphemer".  After all, did not God send down fire to light Elijah's water-soaked offering?

If the accused is not harmed by a lightning bolt from Allah, then the accuser should undergo the following.  The accuser should be tied to a ten-meter metal pole on the night of prolonged thunderstorms.  If the accuser is killed during the night, then we can assume that it is Allah's will.  If the accuser survives the night, then the accused and the accuser should ask forgiveness of each other.

And forgiveness is the basic tenet of all religions, irregardless of how the "believers" ignore this bedrock principle.

Do you reflect your god or does your god reflect you?

George Washington and others have stated that we cannot have morality without religion.  On the other hand, how often do we have religion without morality?

Too many people who proclaim adherence to one religion or another have no morality; that is, they think it is perfectly all right to kill those who do not believe as they do: from the Inquisition to ISIS.  And the lack of morality seems to be worse the more these people claim they have the “true religion”!  Morality is basically do unto other as you would have them do to you.

I just read in Sharon Shinn’s “Dark Moon Defender” the following:

“The goddess abhors mystics.  The goddess demands of her faithful followers that they eradicate magic from the land.”

“Any goddess who demands wicked behavior is wicked herself.  Why would you choose to serve a deity like that?”

Shinn’s book was published in 2006.  I wonder if she had any particular groups in mind that want to kill those who don’t believe as they do.

Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?

A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out.  He stated this over and over again.

Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination?  In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.

Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families.  Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed.  Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.

Are not many Muslims in similar situations?  Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition?  Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?

Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out.  The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”.  This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech.  The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.

Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer.  Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.

Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.

Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.

Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times.  You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html.  See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.

He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty.  Here are two notable quotes from his book.

“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252

“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254

My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought.  I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.

After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought.  They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people.  Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.

A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.”  Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other.  Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.

“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.”  The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.

Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.

Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia.  Poor choice!  The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose.  This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces.  These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

A second invasion was of oil men.  Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control.  This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.

But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians.  Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it.  They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.

“Blasphemy” cuts two ways

Many Muslims complain about the “blasphemy” of cartoonists’ and others’ depictions of Mohammad.  More extreme Muslims consider any non-belief in Islam as “blasphemy”.

What if non-Muslims considered any slanderous statements about their beliefs as “blasphemy”?  What would Muslims think of non-Muslims shooting or blowing up Muslims who made these slanderous statements.  Unfortunately, too many non-Muslims commit these heinous deeds against Muslims, and generally these Muslim victims never made any such statements.

One of the phrases many Americans consider annoying is one made by the Iranian revolutions is “Marg bar Amrika!”  “Death to America!”

Fortunately, there are Iranian politicians who would like to see this phrase fall out of use.  They figure it is counter-productive to reaching an agreement with the West about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10390938/Iran-attempts-to-silence-its-Death-to-America-chants.html

What all those hardliners who profess Christian or Islamic values is a key value of both religions is forgiveness.

Only the quiet ones have true religion

I am listening to the ecstatic singing of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, the CD is called “Shahen-Shah”.  Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan leads a group of Muslim singers from Pakistan.  The words are in Urdu.

My own meditation as I listen is the variety of beliefs around the world, even within religions considered complete.  For example, the CD would be banned by the Taliban because they don’t like singing.

I would say that the “true believers” are those who hold their religion in their hearts, not those who are willing to kill those who hold different beliefs.  The latter are the insecure ones who can only believe if everybody believes exactly as they do.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names cannot hurt me

"A faith that cannot withstand ridicule is no faith at all. And a faith that cannot laugh at itself is a faith that defies human nature."
- “Your Free Speech, and Mine”, Timothy Egan, New York Times, 2015-01-16

There are too many people and too many governments that take offense too easily at any criticism of their religion or their government.  They are so insecure in their beliefs or of their power that they are willing to kill those who criticize them.

The current political insecurity is shown by the North Korean government.  They can’t take the spoof of their leader in an American film.  One, should they worry about a rebellion in North Korea because of this film?  It will definitely not be shown publicly.  Two, have they considered the spoofs of American politicians that are made daily in all kinds of media all across Europe and the Americas?  Does President Obama really have such big ears as drawn by many cartoonists?

The current religious insecurity is shown by those who take offense at caricatures of Mohammed.  This is also a political insecurity by certain governments who use religion to control their people.  Have they considered all the spoofs of religion and religious figures that have been made for centuries in Europe and the Americas?  Does the Pope really wear such a high mitre that his aides have to check the height of a bridge before the Pope can ride under it?

Wiley’s “Non Sequitur” frequently draws the foibles of people entering heaven.  I bet most of us have seen over a dozen cartoons in the last year from a variety of cartoonists picturing God.

Many of you probably know several jokes about religion.  Here are a few that I’ve known for decades.  I’ve shortened them a bit to save space.

A priest and a rabbi golfed together every Sunday afternoon for many years.  One day the priest asked the rabbi if he ever ate ham.  Hem, haw! “Well, yes, I have.”  “Tasted pretty good, huh?”  A couple holes later the rabbi asked the priest if he ever slept with a woman.  Hem, haw!  “Well, yes, I have.”  “Better than ham, huh?”

Two priests and a Protestant minister went fishing together.  After a bit, one priest said he forgot something on shore and walked across the water to shore and came back.  A bit later the other priest did the same.  The Protestant minister had to show that he could walk on water also.  He stepped out of the boat and sank up to his neck.  One priest asked the other, “Do you think we should have told him where the rocks are?”

Jews tell this about themselves: If two Jews are in a room there will be three opinions.  You can substitute Unitarians for Jews and probably several other religious groups.

Garrison Keillor claims the original settlers of Lake Wobegon were Unitarian missionaries, one of whom wanted to convert the Ojibwe with interpretative dance.

For a lot more jokes about Unitarians, see http://www.imladris.com/Sandbox/index.shtml?UuJokes.html.  The lead paragraph is “Many of these jokes are collected in the fine volume "The Church Where People Laugh" by Gwen Foss. They're full of unwarranted stereotypes suggesting that all UUs are flaky, coffee-swilling environmentally fanatical atheists ... as a UU, I find them hilarious.“

Monty Python produced two popular movies heavy on spoofs of religion: “Life of Brian” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.

Ah, “The Holy Grail”!  There is a violent religion for you.  All the Christians that pillaged their way across Europe and the Near East to drive Muslims out of the Holy Land.  And many of them made alliances with the Muslim rulers.

Even religious groups that many consider strait-laced can laugh at themselves.

“A teacher asked her students to bring an item to class that represented their religious beliefs. A Catholic student brought a crucifix. A Jewish student brought a Menora. A Southern Baptist student brought a CorningWare.”

For many more like this, see http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-southern-baptist-ecumenical-jokes-that-will-have-you-rofl-107419/.

I was given a book by a French friend, “Dieu rit en Alsace” (“God laughs in Alsace”).  It has many anecdotes about clergy and lay people.  One of my favorites is about a young Protestant pastor asked to perform a wedding in another town.  He directed the couple to exchange knees and bend their rings.  I wish I still had the book to see the original German and all my other favorites in French.  I hope the person I lent it to can find it.

I wonder if God is so great, then can't he take care of blasphemers like he did with the Great Flood or with Sodom and Gomorrah?

I think those who criticize “blasphemy” are insecure in their own beliefs.  Like the North Korean leaders they see everything that contradicts their world view as a physical threat to themselves.  Many believe that the best counter to “blasphemy” or any insult is to dismiss these with “consider the source”.

Take a look at the “Charlie Hebdo” cover.  It was republished last week in both the Reader Weekly and the Duluth News Tribune.  Isn’t Mohammed shedding a tear about the violence done is his name?  At least twice this past week I’ve seen Muslims retell the story of Mohammed’s forgiveness of a women who threw garbage at him as he passed her house.

“...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” – Qur’an

“Life ain't no how serious.  We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Pogo

“Can't we all just get along?” –  Rodney King

Je suis Charlie!  Je suis Ahmed!

Muslims do speak out!

Too often someone writes or says that Muslims should speak out against the violence committed in the name of Islam.

Are these complainers in a cocoon?  Muslims do speak out about the violence.  The complainers probably don’t read what is even in local dailies.

Maybe they spend too much time on Fox News.  Someone put on the Coffee Party site a snippet from Fox News of an interview with Reza Aslan, author of “Zealot: Jesus of Nazareth”.  The interviewer kept repeating “How can a Muslim write about Jesus?”  In another era, many would ask, “How can a black women be an interviewer on TV?”  Or today, “How can a non-Muslim write about Islam?”  or “How can a non-Muslim even ask questions about Islam?”

As to speaking out, many Muslims do.  A group of Muslim scholars in Britain condemned the violence and the cartoons both but counseled patience and restraint.

One writer who stands out from several that I have read recently is Ahmed Tharwat, a broadcaster and writer in the Twin Cities.  He wrote “I am Ahmed – non-terrorist”.  He wrote for many Muslims that he is tired of being held responsible for the actions of a few out of over a billion Muslims.

Tout est pardonné

I've spent a lot of time researching the "Tout est pardonné" issue of Charlie Hebdo.  But I have found no address to order a copy.  I could impose on a couple of French friends, but I email them too infrequently.

I did find out how to donate and did: http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html.  This site has almost nothing else but donation forms.

But I won’t go to eBay for it.  I read that somebody is already offering this issue at $300!

P.S. 2016-01-02 A French friend did mail me the "Tout est pardonné" issue of Charlie Hebdo.  It really does tax my French.