The Charleston Church Shooting - What is "Terrorism?"

"We do not see things as they are.  We see them as we are."  --Anias Nin

That is my favorite quote of all time.

It’s 3 am as I start writing this piece. It’s a purely impulsive move on my part, as it’s in response to the recent racially-motivated shootings in Charleston, SC from earlier this week. I was motivated to so because of the amount of willful ignorant, apparently delusional people in America who so seem to come off as sane and/or reasonable upon first glance.
And no, I’m not talking about Dylann Roof—the white 21 year-old perpetrator who walked into the historically-black Emanuel AME church in South Carolina's largest city and proceeded to shoot and kill 9 black parishioners during prayer services because he “wanted to shoot black people.” No, what I am talking about are the people who reject the notion that what the avowed racist did was not an act of “domestic terrorism. “ What is so hard to comprehend? Roof killed to further an extreme political agenda—starting a race war.

                                                                     Dylann Roof

I’m going to out on a limb here and conclude that the reason that it’s so hard for those who are questioning whether or not this was in fact, an act of domestic racism is because of two fundamental reasons—both related to race. The first reason I suspect is that because of the prevalence of black-on-black crime within the black community. This is to say that so many Americans are so accustomed to being spoon-fed these negative images of the black community a daily basis, that it’s just too hard for many to comprehend reality that racism against black people is still an issue in modern-day, post first-elected-black-president America. To these people, many within the black community are routinely more likely to be victims of each other than of racism. We all know these individuals…they are the armchair pundits who usually deflect attention away from issue at-hand to tell black people that they should focus on the “troubles in their own communities” instead of “marching” and/or protesting against an act of racism—real or perceived—that shatters the myth that racism is not, in fact, still an issue for some in America.

The second reason why it seems so hard for some to accept that the Charleston shooting was an act of domestic terrorism is likewise related to race---that some people of a particular ideological stripe simply do not want to believe that racism still exist. This is to say that some people are so vested and entrenched in their own ideologically-political (and social) beliefs that they are almost delusional in their perceptions of America—especially as it relates to the perceptions of others. Take for example the following clip from Fox News’ coverage of the Charleston from this week. So unwilling were the producers and talking heads at the conservative news network to believe that the motives behind Roof’s rampage could have been racially-motivated that they totally ignored reality favor of “speculation.” They could not only bring themselves to call Roof’s act a case of domestic terrorism, but found it harder to bring themselves to accept that it was even an act of racially-motivated violence.

They ignored the reality that survivors reported immediately in the massacre’s aftermath that Roof himself declared that he “wanted to shoot black people” because “they are taking over” before he started opening fire inside the church. They ignored the pictures that Roof posted on social medical of himself promoting symbols associated with racist ideologies—including the flag of the old American Confederacy and of the defunct white-ruled African nation of Rhodesia. And they ignored his so-called “manifesto” posted online indicating his white supremacist beliefs...all to the conclusion that “we can’t possibly know his motivations” (“Dylann Roof Photos and a Manifesto Are Posted on Website”).
And it is this level of reality-denial that has fed into the narrative that questions, whether in fact Roof’s rampage in the Emanuel AME Church was an act of domestic terrorism. To embrace this absurd level of questioning, those who deny it resort to hair-splitting distinctions that have no basis in reality. For instance, they cite that Roof acted alone, and that he had no ultimate political purpose in perpetrating his act of violence. Honestly, it would almost amount to a conspiracy theory not to believe that it wasn’t terrorism.

It was agreed that Ted Kaczynski—the so-called “Unabomber”—was a terrorist. He killed, and he did so alone. He—like Roof—also left a ranting manifest outlining his aims and motivations.

Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber killed. He acted alone. He was indeed dubbed a terrorist. He even has a webpage outlining his beliefs (Army of God). What’s so hard for people to accept?
Why are so many Americans so committed to formulating and living by their own distorted interpretations of reality instead of perceiving the reality as it is in front of us? Are we so polarized politically as a nation that we doubt and question reason just out of ideological reflex?

And as we ponder those question, here's another question to ponder...

Read More

The Tragedy Of Iraq (...or "Iraq Is Burning!")

First, I would like to thank those who continually read Beyond The Political Spectrum in attempting to keep up with important events in the news. At the same time, I would like to apologize to those same regular readers for not routinely posting in the last several months on a regular basis. Some of you might know that I have been working to publish a series of crisis-themed books meant to serve as a comprehensive source for disaster planning for both individuals as well as organizations. With that having been said, with so much news and so many associated issues regarding this news, it would simply make sense to just touch on the most relevant item in the news currently.

Sunni insurgents linked with a more radical offshoot of al-Queda driving through Mosul, the second largest city in the country.

Iraq 
If one were attempting to sum up the lowest point in the American involvement in Iraq—2006 and 07—in terms of the political, military, and religious upheavals, the best word would be “quagmire.” Currently, the best word that could most accurately describe the current situation in terms of the military gains of the radical Sunni Muslim insurgency on the march toward the Iraqi capital of Baghdad—as Iraqi government military forces deserted the field of battle en masse—is “tragedy.” Tragedy was in fact the best description from the start of the ill-advised decision of the U.S. to invade the country in the first place in 2003…under the erroneous assumption that its former leadership harbored “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD’s).
Tragedy is the way proponents within the American government attempted to social engineer post-Saddam Hussein by imposing regime change. Granted, Hussein was not the most stable of individuals, his presence did create level of stability that kept any indication of sectarianism from manifesting as anything but occasional unpleasantries between individuals from opposing religious sects. Maybe the late dictator actually knew something about the intra-religious dynamics of his own country that American “experts” didn’t (and still don’t). Maybe a brutal strongman or a heavy hand in governance is all that stands between order and the chaos of ethnic and religious divisions played out in the realm of violent confrontations. We saw this play out in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, when the artificial political boundaries created after WWI ignored these human divisions in favor of creating recognized nation-states. Like in Iraq, pre-2003 oppressive rule managed to lightly smother the true inter-ethnic feelings and differences under the surface. That is, until the current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-dominated central government all-but disenfranchised the Sunni population in the country…the same Sunni who some have taken up with the insurgents. Before the current crisis, ethnic and religious fighting was unheard of as a result of tough rulership. Tragedy too, is the result of not heeding the lessons of history.
Tragic still is the fact that we Americans are so ethnocentric, so self-assured that our way of form of governance and viewing the world that we couldn’t—and still can’t—stop to think for a single moment that Western-style democracy doesn’t work for everyone. This is especially true when tribal identities are more potent than national identities. This is why the Al-Qaeda-linked insurgency seeks to impose strict Islamic law in Sunni state carved out of parts of both Syria and central Iraq—a stated that ignores national political borders.
Currently, the only bright spot in Iraq—a region of relative calm and political stability—is the Kurdish Regional Government in the country’s northern border region. The ethnic Kurdish government, taking advantage of the instability in other parts of the country, has seized nearby lands abandoned by Iraqi government forces in what seems to be a move reflective of an intent to become more autonomous from Baghdad (these lands contain some of the country’s oil production resources). Kurdish stability seems to be the only non-tragic aspect of this chaos.
Finally, tragedy is the best way to describe accusations and finger-pointing toward President Obama being the “reason” for the devolving situation in Iraq…the same Obamawho voted against the invasion of Iraq as Senator Obama back in 2003. Tragedy is the denial by supporters of that action to accept complicity in the creation of this monster. Ultimately, Iraq is a Frankenstein that could have been avoided being created in the first place if we Americans were not so arrogant to believe that everyone in the world will great us with flowers, so ignorant of other (the divisions among) peoples in the world, and blinded of our own sometimes insanely-held ideologies and political alliances that we cannot accept responsibility for the problems we create.

Correction (06/16/14):

I stand corrected on the president’s voting record, but his opposition to the war has been documented on record before becoming either a Senator or the president (see, some of us can admit being wrong).

http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

Read More

Television, Duck Dynasty, & Free Speech...What The Duck...?

Outside of the news and programs that are political, historical, or current-events-oriented (as well as one or two guilty pleasures), there is very little on television which interest me enough to waste my valuable time watching. This goes double for anything that fits into the so-called “reality television” genre of programming; I for the life of me cannot begin to fathom why such mental junk food is so appealing. I suppose it represents the dumbing down of America on the whole. At any rate, it is an issue regarding reality television’s current breakout hit that has me posting yet again an issue that begs discussion.
The issue at hand surrounds the unexplainable-to-sophisticated-minds popularity of the Arts and Entertainment cable network’s “Duck Dynasty” reality television series. Dynasty follows the “day-to-day” life of a mostly backwoods Louisiana living-off-the-land-type redneck family, who happen to run a successful a duck-call manufacturer (if you can believe that). Being dyed-in-the-wool, God-fearing, hard-patriotic, hard-hunting, hard-drinking, hard-fun-loving types of individuals, you can imagine that the family—and their members—might just harbor some attitudes and ideas about life that simply don’t conform to the all-inclusiveness aspirations of a society hell-bent on making everyone happy. Just looking at the family, any such ideas shouldn’t come as a surprise (at the risk of prejudging). But strangely enough, the words and thoughts of an elder from the television-spotlighted family actually shocked a large portion of sensitive Americans.

The cast of "Duck Dynasty"

As a result, once again as a nation we’re forced to confront not only another serving of numbskullery from television network producers, but the fallout from yet another case whereby a television personality is forced to endure the barbs and arrows of those who would seek to police the thinking of those of us who would dare to speak our minds. The issue this time around centers on remarks made by an elder-family member from the mind-numbing weekly show.
In an interview with GQ magazine (here), Phil Robertson, the elder of the now-famous Robertson family the show follows and founder of the family business candidly gave his opinions about—among other things—his thoughts on homosexuality. In responding to the question “what in your mind is sinful,” posed by GQ reporter Drew Magary, the unapologetic conservative Southern Christian responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Needless to say, this set off a furor in both the press and society at large. The sanctions came fast and furious; Robertson was suspended from being part of the filming of further episodes of the show. Keep in mind that this was an interview about Robertson’s personal thoughts and views, not a man running for public office or calling a press conference to shout out his beliefs.
More and more, it seems the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech without government impediments is becoming irrelevant in a society where private enterprise and public interest groups are able to level socioeconomic sanctions that not only attempt to enforce political correctness of thought, but punish words and personal opinions. In fact, given the ubiquity of such policies in the public and private sectors, the way these institutions are able to enforce and impose “corrections” for daring to speak out has more than the force of law itself.  This social policy is more of a threat to our collective civil liberties relating to Free Speech than anything the government is doing at the moment.

Now in the interest of full-disclosure, before this issue came to light, I hadn’t even heard of “Duck Dynasty.” And being agnostic, I can honestly say that I do not purport to know or even predict where a person’s soul goes in the Hereafter due to their actions in the Herenow. But I’ll wager that that “God” is not in the cell phone contacts of anyone presumptuous (and arrogant) enough to inform another person that they are doomed to Hell (or some other spiritual torment) for not embracing someone else’s dogma—I know He/She isn’t in mine. However, I am of the mindset that whenever someone says something stupid, unreasonable, or judgmental, the best means to deal with it is to either ignore it or say something more intelligent and reasonable as a counter. Imposed censorship and/or sanctions, especially whereas they affect a person’s livelihood is not the way to counter a person’s right to express their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of what someone believes, everyone deserves their say—without being forced to the carpet for it.
Any sanctions for expressing one’s personal opinions should come naturally. If a CEO of a major corporation says something offensive to a particular group, then people have a right not to purchase what that firm produces as a natural consequence. If you don’t like what you read here, you have every right to leave a response with something more reasonable to say as a counter to the postings...or you can ignore it altogether and leave. But contacting my employer and telling him that I should be fired for offending your “sensitivities” is not a valid, or even a civilized response. Such actions prevent the free exchange of ideas and thoughts, which is how policies and laws are formed. It is also how we evolve overall as a species.

Read More

Something To (Really) Think About

This sums up the very reason I began blogging in the first place. Most people read and/or listen to ideas, not with an open mind, but with the purpose of defending their beliefs and ideologies.  Most tend to have a counter-argument cocked, loaded, and ready to pull the trigger on as soon as they finish giving their semi-attention to the topic at hand.  Just a little something for you to digest this Sunday morning before you tune into to your favorite weekly television political news roundup or head off to church (See: ”Why I’m Not A Democrat…or Republican” and “Ideology—Something On My Mind”).

Read More

Religion…Enough With This S***! (…or, “You People Taking This Way Too Seriously!”), Conclusion

Religion is one of those things which is something of an mystery to me. Logically, I understand that it is (supposedly) a path toward spiritual enlightenment for those whose souls cry out for some level of harmonious existence within the chaos of a world full of upheaval of every stripe. However, as I try to grasp the way it is practiced, I tend to see a manner of thinking among its adherents which makes me question its usefulness in the Grand Scheme. No doubt, many individuals like myself who question the disconnect between what supposedly religious individuals say and do see a gulf between the preaching and practice of proclaimed faith that at times seems to span infinity.
Last month, Muslims in Afghanistan—including Afghani military personnel—who took offense to the accidental burning of copies of the Koran, took their vengeance out on six U.S. servicemen (the same servicemen who helped to liberate their country from the oppressively “religious” Taliban régime) by gunning them down, while at the same time illustrating their frustration with the American presence in the country.
Recent news items have spotlighted the African-based ethnic insurgency calling itself “The Lord’s Resistance Army,” which has been engaged in human rights abuses that includes the forced conscription of male children, and the forced prostitution of female women and children since the late 1980s. Led by a self-proclaimed “spokesperson for God” Joseph Kony, the movement claims among its aims, to be working towards the establishment of a theocratic state in Uganda (although recent news reports fail to disclose that the LRA was mostly driven out of Uganda. And like many spiritually “enlightened” and “holy” movements before it, uses the most reprehensible tactics in its effort to impose its view of the world on others…the least of which include kidnapping, rape, murder, and object-lesson mutilations.
And in America, so-called “Christians” have impugned the religious convictions of President Obama to levels which transcend simple disrespect, including by those seeking to replace him as Commander-in-Chief in the upcoming November 2012 elections.
A few years ago, the president was forced to quickly distance himself from controversial words (as well as membership in the church) of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Chicago, whose fiery videotaped sermons condemning America for its historical mistreatment of African-Americans led to further demonization of the president.
When it’s all said and done, like many things in American politics (and indeed, in the personal lives of many individuals), religion is a tool…a means to an end, to be used as any other. And in the hands of adept politicians and manipulators, it has become every bit as effective a weapon as mudslinging, character assassination, and labeling those to they are opposed to.
Take the current Republican primary for example. Last month, Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum attacked President Obama’s worldview, stating that the president had a “phone theology,” and not a theology “based on the Bible. The ethnocentric nature of Santorum’s remarks notwithstanding, the freedom of religion right of the First Amendment in no way either promotes, nor compels the president or any American to choose one religious belief over another. But when rightfully challenged on this point, individuals like Santorum and his Evangelical brethren most often will reflect the argument back on individuals by implying a level of religious persecution against those who support and share his beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that the secular state is not anti-religious (although the same cannot be said for secular culture). The separation of church and state was designed to protect religious liberties, not promote them. However, religious zealots like Santorum tend to purposefully distort this reality, equating the absence of (any) religious influence in public policy and the effort to maintain the separation of church and state with an active effort to suppress religious liberties. It’s a disingenuous tactic at best, and it simply plays to the ignorance of those who rely on sound bites and talking heads to shape their thinking, as well as caters to those who perceptions and understanding may be similarly distorted and seeking validation of their beliefs.
Former Pennsylvania Senator and Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum,

Religions and their respective doctrinal precepts among their believers—along with human emotions—have done enough to create social and political divisions all over the world since the introduction of monotheism. And sadly, most adherents do not even stop to think about their beliefs and why they embrace them. In most cases, they are merely choosing to believe what they learned from their parent, and their parents before them, and so on. And even in the rare instances where individuals are able to separate themselves from the socialization (or is it “indoctrination”) into their belief systems, they still tend to ignore the purpose of following a particular spiritual path in the first place—to enlighten their souls and to create a level of respect and co-existence with their fellow human beings. In theory, religion is supposed to make believers better individuals. But human ambitions being what they are, have spurred believers to take what are supposed to be spiritual precepts—guideposts for creating better lives and better living—and turn them into yet another means of obtaining what they want. There seems to be just as many confused, duplicitous, and troubled individuals who function under the auspices of “believers” as they appear to be among their “secular” counterparts.
And when these dynamics are thrown into the arena of politics, you get what we have today—a society fragmented along so many ideological lines where arguments and counter-arguments seems to be the goal of governing, not the creation of substantive policies that make lives better. Religion in politics has been used to justify everything from war, support of the death penalty, and abortion clinic bombings, to racism, gay marriage, and rejecting universally affordable health care. And we are the adults.And we are supposedly the adults...
Imagine if the 1962 decision to ban prayer and religious worship in our public schools had not been enacted; our children and their schools would be every bit as socially fractured as our society and our political arenas (in retrospect, great idea).
I suppose that when it comes to religion, who needs "clear thinking" when people have their faith?

Read More

Religion…Enough With This S***! (…or, “You People Taking This Way Too Seriously!”), Part 1

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg

As an agnostic, I have to admit that I have no way of putting myself in the cultural shoes or the socialized mindsets of individuals so obsessed with, and so fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs that they often engage in behavior which—contradictorily—turns the very precepts of their beliefs on their heads. The only way that my mind can even try to grasp how people can have such myopic fidelity to their beliefs is by likening it to the unshakable certainty a small child has for believing that the Boogey Man awaits them in the room at the end of the dark hallway in which they are expected to enter…and that they are better off basking in the “safety” of what they can see. Perhaps a similarly skeptical reader can wax a more eloquent analogy on the level of understanding it takes for how and why people are able to place so much faith in the unseen, unknowable, and the unverifiable that they willingly surrender their ability to reason beyond their fears or feelings.
And although over the centuries, wiser, more intelligent individuals than myself have sought many times before to attempt to interjection some sanity into the thinking of such Godly individuals, events in recent months have compelled me—at the risk of further isolating regular readers—to write about how individuals have co-opted the already questionable concept of religion…to the detriment of informed thinking and society in general.
The current upheaval in Afghanistan provides an excellent example of how much blind adherence to religious dogma impairs judgment, reveals both intolerance and hypocrisy, and promotes social disharmony.
The recent protests and violence among Afghanis as a result of the accidental burning of Korans—the holy book of the Muslim faith—by low-ranking U.S. Army officials has been ranging for the past two weeks. As of this writing, some six U.S. service personnel have been killed by those protesting the burning of the venerated texts. And despite an apology by President Obama to both the government and the people of Afghanistan, the violent outcry continues, with protesters rejecting the apology and even burning effigies of the president.

Protesters in Afghanistan burning an effigy of President Obama, following the president's apology to the Afghani people over the U.S. military's accidental burning of confiscated Korans.

Taken from detained suspected militants, the holy books were seized by military officials because it was believed that the militants were using them to send messages among each other. The Korans were then accidentally disposed of in a manner offensive to Muslims—by burning them.
Despite the various cultural disconnects and misunderstandings surrounding the issue, the dynamics of the mistake are somewhat understandable…at least to those who are capable of thinking beyond blind devotion and an almost psychotic—if not oftentimes hypocritical—respect for a particular religious belief. Americans for the most part are not very privy to the understanding of cultures beyond our own. And sadly, this lack of understanding carries over to many within the various American military branches.
Additionally, many Americans—especially those in the military—cannot understand that many cultures see Americans as incapable of error, in a manner of speaking. Considering that no other country exports many aspects of its culture to the point where we are emulated the world over, that we are the only country to ever have put a man on the moon, have conquered many diseases which still plague countries like Afghanistan, and that we possess the mightiest military on the planet, Afghanis can—if erroneously—reasonably conclude that any country with such know-how is capable of such behavior only as a matter of intent.
But this is not to say that the Muslim people of Afghanistan are without fault. They are killing U.S. servicemen—the same soldiers who helped liberate their country from the brutally oppressive theocratic Taliban regime—because like Evangelical Christians in this country, Muslims in the Arab World worship their particular interpretation of God (and all things spiritually-related) with hair-trigger sensitivity to perceived “affronts.” So much so that many adherents forget that they owe American soldiers who sacrificed life and (in many cases) limb to give them a shot at a life outside of theocratic oppression.
And like their Christian counterparts here in America, Muslims in Afghanistan seem to embrace a level of thinking which, instead of promoting understanding, tolerance, charity, and forgiveness, seems to promote selective kind of each.
The problem I’ve observed with such single-minded adherence to these beliefs is that adherents often start to actually believe themselves as correctly representing their faiths, instead of the distortions of reality they tend to become. More so, these individuals tend to engage in questionable actions that are more often the manifestations of secular considerations rather than benevolently following spiritual precepts. Such individuals often act mostly out of anger (for not being “respected,”), fear (of being overwhelmed and/or feeling powerlessness in a world of more powerful and influential people exist), pride (in many cases, wounded by some slight), or because they presume to be following the “word/will of God. These motivations tend to reinforce a notion of self-righteousness which blinds adherents to the notion of questioning their own actions, or of seeing some contradictions in their actions. This religious soap boxing is how Muslims are able to convince themselves that those who do not share their personal convictions are “infidels” to support self-serving jihad against them.
We see this same dynamic often in America, where politically active left-leaning Progressives and Evangelical conservative Christians are often convinced of the righteousness of their various causes based on their personal religious convictions (or rather, their interpretations of such). It’s how those with politically right-leaning politics can accuse those on the left of being “Godless liberals,” while leftists can point out conservative “aspirations” of turning America into a theocracy (which admittedly at times seems that way). This is why those on either side of hot-button political issues like gay marriage can claim either that “God is gay,” or “God hates fags,” depending on one’s secular ideological—not spiritual—bent.
In America, religious beliefs tend to be more of a secondary consideration with regards to public and/or social policy. They may provide a driving impetus for these policies, but make no mistake…political power, aspirations, and one-upmanship is the primary consideration.
Just by observing the current Republican primary process, we can see how invoking the idea of divine intervention among the various candidates—both past and present—is meant to sway those who would vote for them in the name of political aspirations. Former Republican primary candidates Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain all have said that “God wants/called me to run for president” (apparently, “God” wanted these individuals to just run for the highest office in the land, but not to actually assume the post).


Political commentator LZ Granderson talks about candidates "called to run by God" recently in CNN.

Simply as a matter of common sense, God cannot be on everyone’s side when it comes to beliefs, motivations, and/or actions. And as a matter of experience with human beings, invoking religious backing and/or the idea of God in matters of personal desire is usually done as a justification for actions which adversely affects others.

To be concluded...

Read More

Muslim Group To Build a Mosque at Ground Zero

From the “What The **** ” Department, it was revealed during the last few days that a Muslim group are in the final stages of preparing to build a mosque in a building just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center attacks of September 11th.
News outlets including the New York Post and the Fox News Network (overlooking the ideological inclinations of the latter) have revealed that the mosque will be a part of a 13-story Muslim community center which has billed as a cultural center, and will house “not (only) a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities.”



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/plan-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-riles-families-victims/

Needless to say many Americans are up in arms. The anger behind building a mosque, a shrine to the religious ideology—or rather a perversion of it—which provided the impetus for the 9/11 attacks so close to the site of the attacks themselves smacks intolerance all around.
On the one hand, Muslims are allowing their dedication and adherence to their religion to blind them to the sensitivities surrounding the issue…to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day, and Americans in general. While a spokesperson for the American Soeciety for Muslim Advancement defends the building of the center as a “need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive” by “amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies,” the uproar by those against the project—most vocally the families of those lost that day—is being ignored in favor of what the Muslim group wants. Combine this with the intent by the center's sponsors/operators to open the center on September 11th 2011—the 10th anniversary of the attacks—only adds salt to the still festering wounds, and feeds the atmosphere of insensitivity surrounding this issue.
One the other hand, victims families in particular and Americans in general, still feeling wounded by the events of that day, are potentially painting all Muslims with a broad paintbrush. It is causing a failure to understand that not only were planes hijacked that day, but so was the Muslim ideology…by extremists.
As opposed to looking for possible solutions to the issue, more thought should have been put into the brainstorming and communications stages of this predicament. Groups with such potentially conflicting motivations and missions should take the time to communicate with one another whenever something of this magnitude of sensitivity, such as when a vendor wants to erect a liquor shop near a school.
In much the same way that a neo-Nazi organization (and no, I am not comparing Islam to Nazism as an ideology) would not be allowed to build a headquarters near Aushwitz, or a Japanese naval memorial near Pear Harbor, why would zoning officials in New York not consider the sensitive nature of permitting such a structure near such a site?
Local governmental departments such as those responsible for zoning should stop blindly engaging in the bureaucratic routine of simply approving or building , and actually put some consideration into the effects of proposed projects of this nature.

Read More

What Happened To The Lessons of Childhood? (Or, “What the **** Is Wrong With People?”), Part 2

Continued from Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/Adults)

Whenever we think about the life lessons that we were given in our childhoods, perhaps no institution comes to mind more than the Church. But what happens when the Church itself ignores the same advice it gave us? What happens when those we look up to the most, who are supposed to represent themselves as agents of all things decent and spiritual, allow themselves to fall prey to material pursuits and all-too worldly behavior? We get a dose of painful reality…an understanding that many spiritual institutions are every bit as dysfunctional and out of control as many in the secular world.
It’s only recently that the seemingly rampant wave of child molestation and allegations of such at the hands of officials in the Catholic Church have started to subside. The allegations, the arrests, the accusations of sanctioned cover-ups, the civil actions…all because officials within the Church were incapable of living up to their promise of disciplined and dedicated spiritual counselors and followers of the advice they were charged with giving us (remember the Golden Rule?).
In the [recent] American Protestant tradition, politically active Evangelicals wed themselves to secular political ideologies and groups for the sake of influencing social policy, and violating the spirit Church and State separation. What does it say that those of us who don’t share a particular faith with the religious movers and shakers are forced to accept an interpretation and application of law based on how someone views the “Word of God?” Must the possibility of beneficial treatments for many medical maladies go unexplored because someone else’s interpretation of God’s intention’s forbids harvesting stem cells from dead fetuses…no matter the cause of death? Do we ignore benefits of making available to young people in this country contraceptive simply because someone believes doing so will endorse out-of-wedlock “fornication?
Acknowledged religious figures like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have a great deal of influence among the religious bloc within the conservative electoral base in this country—one needn’t have to look beyond the many Christian-based institutions each have built such as universities, television programming, etc. So what does it say when figures like Robertson overly maligns the feminist movement in the following way:

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

And what of religious leaders in America? What does it do to the faith of a believer when a [at least to some] religious figure like Jesse Jackson is revealed to have been involved in an extramarital affair during the same time that he was supposed to be providing spiritual counsel to former President Bill Clinton during his own widely publicized tryst with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky?
What it looks like is that our traditional refuge of spiritual counsel is not longer a place for solace and comfort, as those who represent its values have seemingly lost their minds along with everyone else!
What’s worse is that politicians of all stripes—from leftist liberal to reactionary conservative and everyone in between—still holds out hope that our political institutions are where our hopes lie. This particular sense of hope that salvation for our collective well-being lies in the political realm is harder to understand than even the basic question of what’s wrong with people? given the unexplainable way that politicians have and continue to violate both their family and the public’s sense of trust…and despite being in the public eye constantly. The list of political officials who have recently had questionable sexual indiscretions reads like a Who’s Who of the politically influential:

2009: after disappearing for seven days, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits that he had secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he’d been having an affair.

2009: Sen. John Ensign admits that he had engaged in an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer who was then employed as one of his top aides.

Aug. 2008: John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, and the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, confesses that he had lied repeatedly about an affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter.

2008: Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick pleads guilty, is forced to resign, and is jailed for lying under oath about explicit text messages he sent to an aide, revealing they the two were involved in an extramarital affair.

March 2008: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, resigns a week after a New York Times report links him to a prostitution ring.

June 2007: Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is arrested in a Minneapolis airport restroom. He pleads guilty to disorderly conduct for tapping his feet and swiping his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig later denies any wrongdoing and says he is not gay.

July 2007: Sen. David Vitter, R-La., acknowledges that his Washington phone number was among those called several years before by an escort service.

September 2006; Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigns after reports that he sent sexual messages to teenage male congressional pages.

2005; Spokane Mayor Jim West, one of the most powerful Republicans in the Legislature and a champion of an anti-gay agenda during his tenure, admits to having private online relationships during 2005 through the Gay.com website. In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies, and; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If one looks at this issue from both a Biblical standpoint, and that of how they ignore the lessons were were taught in our childhoods, it would tax the imagination as to how many of those simple lessons for living these violations ignore.
What is wrong with people?

To Be Concluded

Read More