Most of us remember the essence of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. It had (and still has) the capacity of pulling our minds and hearts up short and calling us all to check our motivations before acting, speaking, writing and...yes...even thinking. Today, a lot of people have apparently forgotten some things: First, that he was a "Reverend", a man of the cloth who was a devout Christian who reminded America...a nation founded on Christian mores and beliefs...of how we should live life; Second, that his message was one of inclusion, not separatism or divisiveness.
In the late 1950's he spoke at a church in Montgomery, Alabama, and part of what he said was, "How do you go about loving your enemies? Begin with yourself." And later he advised, "When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time when you must not do it." Further, he quoted from the Bible: "Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..." Matt. 5
During the year...and particularly on Martin Luther King's designated holiday...there are celebrations and coming together of various groups to allegedly celebrate not just his recognition, but his message. Yet so many of these groups clearly act, think and speak in manner that reveals that not only have they abandoned MLK's views, but now are clearly diametrically opposite in their goals and actions.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) actively chants for the killing of Police. BLM has never condemned or distanced itself from those who have murdered Police, usually calling for "understanding" of their motivation. Black leaders have spent more time pointing to anecdotal mistreatment and actions by a minority of Police Officers as a defense and only as a one sentence add-on said that killing was wrong.
LGBT folk have, upon getting equality in the secular world, used that position to enact vengeance on any people who, based on their religious convictions, declined to produce certain products. Once they no longer had to hide, they have taken that opportunity to "get even." That is absolutely contrary to MLK's admonitions and the goal of his movement. Unity and acceptance were his goals. Note that nowhere did the term "approval" come into the picture. I can argue that my neighbor should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't physically harm others...but that doesn't require me to approve of everything the do, or create a legal right for them to require me to cheer for their actions.
If I go to church or synagogue, wear a dress shirt and tie with Bermuda shorts, they are not required to take a public position approving of my actions. Why should the reverse be considered "politically correct?" As a matter of fact, I consider the phrase "politically correct" an oxymoron anyway.
But...shouldn't the media or someone call out these people? BLM advocates murder, LGBT advocates vengeance, University Professors advocate elimination of the First Amendment, and University students advocate abandonment of integration and freedom of speech in favor of apartheid and controlled speech. Rev. King looks down on these people and actions and I am sure that tears flow down his cheeks...and it is sad. It is also despicable.
Honoring MLK's thoughts, beliefs and goals would have us ignoring physical differences, honoring each other, respecting ourselves and those around us by holding ourselves to our standards even as we allow others to chose differently. Wonder if it will ever be seen that way again...
Showing posts with label Politically Correct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politically Correct. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2016
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy
It is maddening to hear the universal cacophony of voices talking about "Terrorism" as our enemy. Such misdirection and/or sloppiness is embarrassing.
Terrorism (causing terror) is exactly like "carpet bombing", "gorilla warfare", or "flanking." It is a tactic used by nations, groups and individuals in an attempt to accomplish something; the "something" does not have to be cogent or even sane.
The mass murderer who kills children in a school is using "terror" as a tactic; we don't understand it if he is insane, but it is his chosen tactic instead of standing in the middle of the road and waving a sign. A homeless women engages in an act of Terror when she drives down a sidewalk, killing folks she doesn't even know. A person who snipes at people driving cars by on an Interstate road is combining two tactics: gorilla warfare and terror. I could go on and on, but the point is made: Terror is a tactic...it is a means to do any one or more of many goals. The goal is not particularly important.
Terror, when used by an individual, may have a goal. It may not. A mentally ill person may engage in a terrorist act and have no goal. Mental illness was and remains the enemy.
A bank robber may shoot up, wound and kill many in the robbing of the bank. The terror of multiple wounds and killings is for the purpose of causing fear and confusion and to make escape easier and more certain. The Criminal Act was and remains the enemy.
When an extended group adopts the tactics of Terror for a purpose, it helps to identify the enemy, and the source that created that group as an enemy. It does NOT help to focus on tactics; I remember the focus on the gorilla warfare of the North Vietnamese instead of on the source of their vision of the United States as their enemy. What a waste of effort...and we failed to achieve our goals in that conflict.
Currently we have ISIS (ISIL or whatever other derogatory name is currently in vogue) as our enemy. Their tactics include infiltration, conventional military warfare, psychological warfare, as well as Public Relations efforts in recruitment, terrorist acts, and many others. All of these are tactics.
Why does ISIS see the West in general and the United States in particular as the enemy? They say (and it behooves us to listen to our enemy when the consistently declare why the hate us and avoid trying to re-define it in terms that we find comforting (and, most harmful, misleading), that we are destroying their their way of life, bringing immoral and unacceptable behavior to their countries, interfering with their way of life and trying to erode their lifestyle, indoctrinating their youth with the immoral and wasteful ways of the west and showing them and their brand of civilization no respect. They also will quote the commands of their religion, Islam, as contained in the Qur'an, that they conquer the world and convert all to Islam. Dying in this cause is seen as a guarantee of entry to Paradise, hence the willingness to engage in the terrorist tactic of body bombs and mass killings when death to the perpetrators is all but guaranteed.
Any reasonable person bothering to ask questions, read, and analyse all of this cannot escape the finding that the self-declared enemy attempting to fight, kill, and terrorize the west and the United States is Islamic in nature and most specifically involves devout extremist Muslims who have decided that they need to act now to save their perception of what civilization should be: Islamic.
There are Muslims in name only, just as there are Christians in name only; these folks claim the title and show up on special occasions and actually value the heredity of Islam...but neither group actually is dedicated to live the life that either the Bible or the Qur'an dictates. They are not enemies of anything other than having their lives interfered with by the folks who comprise ISIS. Still others have fully embraced the qualities and practices of the western world for various reasons: women because of the freedom to make their own decisions and dress as they wish, the LGBT community because it avoids being put to death...and others.
The West in general and the United States in particular doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of what is presented here for a variety of reasons. A main one is that the west has become afraid of confrontation and developed a distaste for stress of any sort; I call it the "pc movement." How dare anyone make us feel "uncomfortable." ...or "wrong." ...or put in an unwanted position of having to actually "do" something! Like Neville Chamberlain, they just want to believe that everyone really just wants "to get along." Wanting and acknowledging the truth are often not co-existent.
I wonder if we will ever see our President or any world leader acknowledge, and identify the enemy instead of repeating over and over references to the "behind the lines tactics?" I am starting to doubt it. Even if they called the tactics of terror a form of gorilla warfare it would be an improvement, because it would make everyone consciously aware that we have avoided actually putting a name on, and thus identifying, the real enemy.
That would be the start of what perhaps could become victory.
Terrorism (causing terror) is exactly like "carpet bombing", "gorilla warfare", or "flanking." It is a tactic used by nations, groups and individuals in an attempt to accomplish something; the "something" does not have to be cogent or even sane.
The mass murderer who kills children in a school is using "terror" as a tactic; we don't understand it if he is insane, but it is his chosen tactic instead of standing in the middle of the road and waving a sign. A homeless women engages in an act of Terror when she drives down a sidewalk, killing folks she doesn't even know. A person who snipes at people driving cars by on an Interstate road is combining two tactics: gorilla warfare and terror. I could go on and on, but the point is made: Terror is a tactic...it is a means to do any one or more of many goals. The goal is not particularly important.
Terror, when used by an individual, may have a goal. It may not. A mentally ill person may engage in a terrorist act and have no goal. Mental illness was and remains the enemy.
A bank robber may shoot up, wound and kill many in the robbing of the bank. The terror of multiple wounds and killings is for the purpose of causing fear and confusion and to make escape easier and more certain. The Criminal Act was and remains the enemy.
When an extended group adopts the tactics of Terror for a purpose, it helps to identify the enemy, and the source that created that group as an enemy. It does NOT help to focus on tactics; I remember the focus on the gorilla warfare of the North Vietnamese instead of on the source of their vision of the United States as their enemy. What a waste of effort...and we failed to achieve our goals in that conflict.
Currently we have ISIS (ISIL or whatever other derogatory name is currently in vogue) as our enemy. Their tactics include infiltration, conventional military warfare, psychological warfare, as well as Public Relations efforts in recruitment, terrorist acts, and many others. All of these are tactics.
Why does ISIS see the West in general and the United States in particular as the enemy? They say (and it behooves us to listen to our enemy when the consistently declare why the hate us and avoid trying to re-define it in terms that we find comforting (and, most harmful, misleading), that we are destroying their their way of life, bringing immoral and unacceptable behavior to their countries, interfering with their way of life and trying to erode their lifestyle, indoctrinating their youth with the immoral and wasteful ways of the west and showing them and their brand of civilization no respect. They also will quote the commands of their religion, Islam, as contained in the Qur'an, that they conquer the world and convert all to Islam. Dying in this cause is seen as a guarantee of entry to Paradise, hence the willingness to engage in the terrorist tactic of body bombs and mass killings when death to the perpetrators is all but guaranteed.
Any reasonable person bothering to ask questions, read, and analyse all of this cannot escape the finding that the self-declared enemy attempting to fight, kill, and terrorize the west and the United States is Islamic in nature and most specifically involves devout extremist Muslims who have decided that they need to act now to save their perception of what civilization should be: Islamic.
There are Muslims in name only, just as there are Christians in name only; these folks claim the title and show up on special occasions and actually value the heredity of Islam...but neither group actually is dedicated to live the life that either the Bible or the Qur'an dictates. They are not enemies of anything other than having their lives interfered with by the folks who comprise ISIS. Still others have fully embraced the qualities and practices of the western world for various reasons: women because of the freedom to make their own decisions and dress as they wish, the LGBT community because it avoids being put to death...and others.
The West in general and the United States in particular doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of what is presented here for a variety of reasons. A main one is that the west has become afraid of confrontation and developed a distaste for stress of any sort; I call it the "pc movement." How dare anyone make us feel "uncomfortable." ...or "wrong." ...or put in an unwanted position of having to actually "do" something! Like Neville Chamberlain, they just want to believe that everyone really just wants "to get along." Wanting and acknowledging the truth are often not co-existent.
I wonder if we will ever see our President or any world leader acknowledge, and identify the enemy instead of repeating over and over references to the "behind the lines tactics?" I am starting to doubt it. Even if they called the tactics of terror a form of gorilla warfare it would be an improvement, because it would make everyone consciously aware that we have avoided actually putting a name on, and thus identifying, the real enemy.
That would be the start of what perhaps could become victory.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
"Trump" is an idea, an attitude, but not a President
I must admit that our Federal Government has infuriated me for a minimum of six Presidential terms of office. We have descended morally, financially and civilly. I have watched misbehavior in the White House (always, I am sure, present to some degree at different times) become endorsed as acceptable and understandable and not cause for censure by the multitudes. Our Federal Representative and employees have shown disregard for responsibly balancing the federal budget and for actually working an honest work day properly for some pretty good wages. And now we see all our Elected officials lying with unprecedented frequency with not one hint of embarrassment.
But when anyone shouts out in anger and disappoint, stating these facts out loud, the media and multitudes shout them down as being "disrespectful." Seriously? Such behavior warrants respect? In what Universe?
And into this remarkable state of affairs comes one Donald Trump. He doesn't work for people; people work for him. That has been true for most of his life and he has made money...a lot of money. He has gotten quite used to his word being law and, to quote a recent, once successful actor, "winning."
He has, like many of us, become unhappy with our government. And he states his anger with no filter. What is most wonderful to many of us is that the media actually reports these comments. And these are comments we have made for years to each other and not one reporter, not one elected official has ever done more than nod in what was supposed to be seen as sympathy, ... and then ignore us and our anger. To see the consternation on the part of media at this is cathartic...it makes me feel wonderful at not being able to shut down his comments.
So...why am I uneasy?
Because anger, when unchecked, becomes the ignition for mob attitude and behavior; such anger becomes the rationale and excuse for excesses that go beyond those that are the immediate source of that anger. It can be dangerous...like watching a back-fire you thought would stop the big blaze suddenly turn into an even bigger danger. Be careful what you wish for...
Trump's comments are expressions of frustration...but they are not solutions. When asked for specifics, he replies with a torrent of comments which all come down to two things: "I'll build a wall" and "Trust Me." The first is only a first step to protect our borders and is by no means comprehensive. "Trust Me"????
We are completing 6 1/2 years of an administration that was elected on the basis of "Hope" and "Change." Everyone I have spoken to interpreted those words as meaning what each individual saw as hope and as change. Turned out that no one ever actually demanded that our "President" tell us how he defined those terms. That has not turned out very well.
Now I watch a firebrand and hear him saying "trust me." I don't think so, Skippy! Been down that road before and I won't do it again.
But that ignition is still operating and I watch, hear, and read the tremendous emotion of his followers, acolytes and minions declaring that "the whole thing needs to be turned down." They are the reverse image of the followers of our current "President"; facts mean nothing, questions are not allowed, discussion is useless, and behavior is crude and uncivil. Any challenge is perceived as personal, not related to policy of accumulation of fact.
We have a President right now that sees his power as exponential, by-passing Congress on everything, including items that are clearly withing the purview of Congress; who is so thin-skinned that whenever anything...anything...he says is challenged in any way, you can see the rise in both blood pressure and pulse rate. Mr. Trump has the same reaction to any challenge, only his verbal skills are far more crude and direct; Mr. Obama will internalize that and then seek retribution in some way that does not leave any evidence.
I don't want a hot head in the oval office. I don't want a liar in the oval office. I am looking for a President that is honest and has a sense of NOT being the smartest person in the world; one who will always welcome questions and disagreement...both of which expand understanding and lead to better decisions.
Does anyone who has watched the ideas and attitude that is "Trump" feel that such attributes apply?
But when anyone shouts out in anger and disappoint, stating these facts out loud, the media and multitudes shout them down as being "disrespectful." Seriously? Such behavior warrants respect? In what Universe?
And into this remarkable state of affairs comes one Donald Trump. He doesn't work for people; people work for him. That has been true for most of his life and he has made money...a lot of money. He has gotten quite used to his word being law and, to quote a recent, once successful actor, "winning."
He has, like many of us, become unhappy with our government. And he states his anger with no filter. What is most wonderful to many of us is that the media actually reports these comments. And these are comments we have made for years to each other and not one reporter, not one elected official has ever done more than nod in what was supposed to be seen as sympathy, ... and then ignore us and our anger. To see the consternation on the part of media at this is cathartic...it makes me feel wonderful at not being able to shut down his comments.
So...why am I uneasy?
Because anger, when unchecked, becomes the ignition for mob attitude and behavior; such anger becomes the rationale and excuse for excesses that go beyond those that are the immediate source of that anger. It can be dangerous...like watching a back-fire you thought would stop the big blaze suddenly turn into an even bigger danger. Be careful what you wish for...
Trump's comments are expressions of frustration...but they are not solutions. When asked for specifics, he replies with a torrent of comments which all come down to two things: "I'll build a wall" and "Trust Me." The first is only a first step to protect our borders and is by no means comprehensive. "Trust Me"????
We are completing 6 1/2 years of an administration that was elected on the basis of "Hope" and "Change." Everyone I have spoken to interpreted those words as meaning what each individual saw as hope and as change. Turned out that no one ever actually demanded that our "President" tell us how he defined those terms. That has not turned out very well.
Now I watch a firebrand and hear him saying "trust me." I don't think so, Skippy! Been down that road before and I won't do it again.
But that ignition is still operating and I watch, hear, and read the tremendous emotion of his followers, acolytes and minions declaring that "the whole thing needs to be turned down." They are the reverse image of the followers of our current "President"; facts mean nothing, questions are not allowed, discussion is useless, and behavior is crude and uncivil. Any challenge is perceived as personal, not related to policy of accumulation of fact.
We have a President right now that sees his power as exponential, by-passing Congress on everything, including items that are clearly withing the purview of Congress; who is so thin-skinned that whenever anything...anything...he says is challenged in any way, you can see the rise in both blood pressure and pulse rate. Mr. Trump has the same reaction to any challenge, only his verbal skills are far more crude and direct; Mr. Obama will internalize that and then seek retribution in some way that does not leave any evidence.
I don't want a hot head in the oval office. I don't want a liar in the oval office. I am looking for a President that is honest and has a sense of NOT being the smartest person in the world; one who will always welcome questions and disagreement...both of which expand understanding and lead to better decisions.
Does anyone who has watched the ideas and attitude that is "Trump" feel that such attributes apply?
Monday, January 12, 2015
Islam: Peaceful, or a threat to the West?
Have you noticed how the great majority of terrorist acts recently have been perpetrated by those who uttered words, or left written evidence, that indicated they were acting as Muslims in the service of God? And have you also noticed that almost every politician, with the two exceptions of the current President of Egypt and the French Defense Minister, has refused to even use the word "Islam" in anyway when referencing the terrorist acts? Does that seem as strange to you as it does to me?
After multiple readings of English translations of the Qu'ran, it would seem that the answer to the question posed by my title is...both.
The two major publications that we look upon as the basis for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the Qu'ran and the Bible. According to Muslims, the Qu'ran was written by the Prophet, Mohammad. We know the Bible was written years after the Jesus lived, not by him. The Bible in the Old Testament is largely historical and allegorical; it provides tenets for living a live oriented to God, and provides specific instruction as to how to live one's life. The New Testament is the story of Jesus' life and the message of redemption through faith in Jesus with the promise of rewards in Heaven. The Old Testament in particular describes historical events when God instructed his "people" to conquer other lands, but nowhere contains any instruction for present day readers to take on any such political activity, even in defense of the religion. The same is true of the New Testament. Such actions have been undertaken in the name of Christianity in the past...the Crusades and the Inquisition come readily to mind...but they were movements driven by men who claimed to interpret or receive guidance from God, not from written direction in the Bible. All religions speak to a higher existence that disdains violence in this life with rewards to come in the next life...except for one: Islam!
Islam in the west seems to be a religion of Peace. Yet we are aware that in nations where Muslims are in the majority, or have political control, they have absolutely no respect for any religion other than Islam; they require all to obey Sharia Law and any who are not converted take on "dhimmi" status, a second-class level of existence...or are killed. To westerners, this is problematic...a conundrum that they apparently have no interest in understanding and definitely no interest in discussing publicly. Why do you suppose that is?
To understand, one first must read the Qu'ran and understand not only its contents but also its authority. As I wrote earlier, the Qu'ran was authored by Muslims Prophet, Mohammad while alive, not some historical remembering of him or things he said. As such, it has absolute authority for devout Muslims...Mohammad spoke for God, and through the Qu'ran continues to speak for him. There are no accommodations, no interpretations, no bargaining...if it is written, so it is and shall remain. There is no room for asking what "is" is!
With that in mind, know that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims respect all religions so long as Muslims are in the minority. They are to live a devout life, but honor others' beliefs and remain peaceful. If and when Muslims become equal in power or equally influential in political circles, the Qu'ran then commands that Muslims require that Islam be given equal respect with other beliefs, and honor given to those that worship Allah. So far, all this fits in with the western view of freedom of religion...live and let live, right? Absolutely. However it is the next step that means trouble.
The Qu'ran goes on to instruct the devout that should numerical or political superiority be achieved in a country, region or nation, the faithful shall impose Sharia Law and command all to convert to Islam. If they refuse, or do not abide by Sharia Law, they either become "dhimmi" or are slain.
Some of you about now are thinking that that is ridiculous. Really? Consider the governance of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal. Not enough? How about: Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, and Uganda. Shall I go on to the Americas? Consider: Guyana and Suriname. In Asia, as just a sampling, we have: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh...well, you get the picture. In each of these cases, Islam rules and all are answerable to Sharia. Lashings, beheading and stoning to death are not unusual. Remember the spate of honor killings here a number of years ago? In lands ruled by Sharia, those don't even make the news, much less be other than proper responses by the heads of house holds.
Many have told me that this kind of thing cannot happen in America...or even in most western countries. Really?! How do you know. Those Muslims who denounce the terrorists do so for one of two reasons. The one that we wish to be true is that they do not agree with the terrorists in any part of their beliefs. But there is a very real possibility that some of "our" Muslims are devout, and as such do not try to rush the acquisition of numerical or political superiority...which they think that the terrorists are doing wrongly. The devout are content to await their ascension to political power and then will, in accordance with their devoutly held beliefs, happily establish Sharia Islamic rule and require all to convert to Islam or take the degrading status of dhimmi while not in any way granting immunity from the application of Sharia law and its punishments. Western women who like fashion, men or women who like alcohol, unrelated sex, or belong to the LGBT community will find no comfort if that happens. But meanwhile, devout Muslims...those we could correctly call "fundamentalists"...will continue to get a head start on destroying the West they see as a threat to true Islam...and they will include any Islamic groups they see as no conforming to their vision of what true Islam is...
Anyone can see the politically correct conundrum that these facts would put on today's western diplomats, office holders, militarists should they be required to acknowledge them. Their cowardice in the face of such a large potential problem is totally understandable...even as it is nonetheless inexcusable.
After multiple readings of English translations of the Qu'ran, it would seem that the answer to the question posed by my title is...both.
The two major publications that we look upon as the basis for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the Qu'ran and the Bible. According to Muslims, the Qu'ran was written by the Prophet, Mohammad. We know the Bible was written years after the Jesus lived, not by him. The Bible in the Old Testament is largely historical and allegorical; it provides tenets for living a live oriented to God, and provides specific instruction as to how to live one's life. The New Testament is the story of Jesus' life and the message of redemption through faith in Jesus with the promise of rewards in Heaven. The Old Testament in particular describes historical events when God instructed his "people" to conquer other lands, but nowhere contains any instruction for present day readers to take on any such political activity, even in defense of the religion. The same is true of the New Testament. Such actions have been undertaken in the name of Christianity in the past...the Crusades and the Inquisition come readily to mind...but they were movements driven by men who claimed to interpret or receive guidance from God, not from written direction in the Bible. All religions speak to a higher existence that disdains violence in this life with rewards to come in the next life...except for one: Islam!
Islam in the west seems to be a religion of Peace. Yet we are aware that in nations where Muslims are in the majority, or have political control, they have absolutely no respect for any religion other than Islam; they require all to obey Sharia Law and any who are not converted take on "dhimmi" status, a second-class level of existence...or are killed. To westerners, this is problematic...a conundrum that they apparently have no interest in understanding and definitely no interest in discussing publicly. Why do you suppose that is?
To understand, one first must read the Qu'ran and understand not only its contents but also its authority. As I wrote earlier, the Qu'ran was authored by Muslims Prophet, Mohammad while alive, not some historical remembering of him or things he said. As such, it has absolute authority for devout Muslims...Mohammad spoke for God, and through the Qu'ran continues to speak for him. There are no accommodations, no interpretations, no bargaining...if it is written, so it is and shall remain. There is no room for asking what "is" is!
With that in mind, know that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims respect all religions so long as Muslims are in the minority. They are to live a devout life, but honor others' beliefs and remain peaceful. If and when Muslims become equal in power or equally influential in political circles, the Qu'ran then commands that Muslims require that Islam be given equal respect with other beliefs, and honor given to those that worship Allah. So far, all this fits in with the western view of freedom of religion...live and let live, right? Absolutely. However it is the next step that means trouble.
The Qu'ran goes on to instruct the devout that should numerical or political superiority be achieved in a country, region or nation, the faithful shall impose Sharia Law and command all to convert to Islam. If they refuse, or do not abide by Sharia Law, they either become "dhimmi" or are slain.
Some of you about now are thinking that that is ridiculous. Really? Consider the governance of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal. Not enough? How about: Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, and Uganda. Shall I go on to the Americas? Consider: Guyana and Suriname. In Asia, as just a sampling, we have: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh...well, you get the picture. In each of these cases, Islam rules and all are answerable to Sharia. Lashings, beheading and stoning to death are not unusual. Remember the spate of honor killings here a number of years ago? In lands ruled by Sharia, those don't even make the news, much less be other than proper responses by the heads of house holds.
Many have told me that this kind of thing cannot happen in America...or even in most western countries. Really?! How do you know. Those Muslims who denounce the terrorists do so for one of two reasons. The one that we wish to be true is that they do not agree with the terrorists in any part of their beliefs. But there is a very real possibility that some of "our" Muslims are devout, and as such do not try to rush the acquisition of numerical or political superiority...which they think that the terrorists are doing wrongly. The devout are content to await their ascension to political power and then will, in accordance with their devoutly held beliefs, happily establish Sharia Islamic rule and require all to convert to Islam or take the degrading status of dhimmi while not in any way granting immunity from the application of Sharia law and its punishments. Western women who like fashion, men or women who like alcohol, unrelated sex, or belong to the LGBT community will find no comfort if that happens. But meanwhile, devout Muslims...those we could correctly call "fundamentalists"...will continue to get a head start on destroying the West they see as a threat to true Islam...and they will include any Islamic groups they see as no conforming to their vision of what true Islam is...
Anyone can see the politically correct conundrum that these facts would put on today's western diplomats, office holders, militarists should they be required to acknowledge them. Their cowardice in the face of such a large potential problem is totally understandable...even as it is nonetheless inexcusable.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Sports and Domestic Violence
It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment. Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.
Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done. For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.
Apparently those days are gone forever. Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation. Domestic violence is abhorrent. And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent. Although one would not know that by current standards. A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice. The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men. Women get a pass. Not sure why...but they do.
In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence. If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete. The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element. Is that right? Should there be a discussion about that. If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family? Does that make sense? Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything? Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge. Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion? Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic. Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.
And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also. It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events. Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise). And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.
Fair is fair. Equal is equal. What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.
Let us have this discussion...
Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done. For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.
Apparently those days are gone forever. Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation. Domestic violence is abhorrent. And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent. Although one would not know that by current standards. A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice. The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men. Women get a pass. Not sure why...but they do.
In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence. If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete. The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element. Is that right? Should there be a discussion about that. If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family? Does that make sense? Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything? Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge. Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion? Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic. Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.
And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also. It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events. Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise). And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.
Fair is fair. Equal is equal. What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.
Let us have this discussion...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)