Mosaic: My Thinking Place

Who are the terrorists?

2008-02-28T19:56:00.000-08:00

Introduction:

When one thinks of terrorism, the immediate image that comes to many American minds is that of angry Muslims spewing forth hatred in Arabic, usually against Israel and its supporters. Arabs and Muslims are vilified in Western culture because the media has made it that way. The dictionary definition of terrorism is:
“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/terrorism)

If the Arabs are guilty of terrorism, then the Jews, or more particularly the Zionists, are at least equally as guilty. This paper will research the history of Jewish terrorism and provide insight into its present-day perpetrators.
EARLY ZIONIST TERRORIST GANGS.
Long before Israel became a state, the Palestinians clashed with their Jewish neighbors, even in areas where the Jews had lived for hundreds of years. Islam and Judaism both claimed the area of Jerusalem as their own holy site. With the Jewish praying at the western Wailing Wall and the Muslims at the Al Aqsa Mosque in close proximity, it was only a matter of time until the friction between the two populations became overwhelming. The Mufti stirred hatred towards the Jews, and instilled the idea that the Jews wanted to overtake the Mosque. The British would not confirm the Jews’ right to the western wall. As many as 6,000 Jews marched in the streets in 1928, further inflaming the Arabs, and lending credence to the Mufti’s speech. The Arabs began to riot, and since the Jews could not count on the British for support, a grassroots militia called Hanagah took up arms against the Arabs. (Jewish Agency for Israel, 2002.) This group became the first large scale Zionist terrorist group. It was an illegal organization that was not supported by the British and answered to no one. Haganah ran training camps much like those of Al-Qaeda, set up an illegal arms trade, and even produced its own weapons. The group often attacked Palestinian civilians as punishment for Arab attacks on Jewish settlers. They specialized in night missions and unconventional warfare, protecting illegal Jewish immigration and setting up illegal settlements in Palestine.
A group of members of Haganah apparently thought that Haganah’s goals were too peaceful. They broke off from the group and formed Irgun, the National Military Organization. Interestingly, Irgun’s leader, Abraham Tehomi, was thought by Haganah to be a fascist. Whereas, Haganah supposedly practiced restraint, Irgun’s philosophy was that the best defense against Palestinians was pre-emptive attack. They carried out one such attack on November 14, 1937, prompting the British to define possessing weapons and bombs, and terror and sabotage as capital crimes. Defiantly, Irgun continued its attacks, which absolutely fit the definition of terrorism. In July of 1938, an Irgun militant disguised as an Arab placed a package in the center of the Haifa Arab market. It exploded, killing 21 Arabs and injuring 50. In Jerusalem, the following week, an Irgun member exploded a mine in the Arab market at the end of prayer at the mosque, killing eight Arabs and injuring more than 30. (The History of Irgun Online.) These events are similar to the ones that plague Iraq today, and Irgun’s actions closely resemble those of Al Sadr’s militants.
Abraham Stern split from Irgun and formed his own organization in 1940. Unlike Irgun, Stern’s gang focused its energy on ridding Palestine of the British. Even after Stern’s assassination in 1942, his gang continued to implement his anti-British policy. In 1944, the Stern Gang killed British Minister Moyne in Cairo, and bombed British installations. (Friedman, 2000.)
Irgun and other Jewish terrorists formed the Unified Resistance Movement, in response to the continued refusal by the British to support the Zionist initiative. Irgun and the Stern Gang began to attack the British Royal Air Force, police stations, and armories. When the British discovered documents confirming the existence of the Unified Resistance Movement, Jewish terrorists (under the direction of Menachem Begin) eventually bombed the King David Hotel, killing 91 British, Arabs, and Jews. They began a campaign of kidnapping British officers in an attempt to exchange them for Jewish terrorists who had been arrested. In a bloody attack in 1945, the Stern Gang killed and wounded British soldiers from the Sixth Airborne Division. These British soldiers were shot at close range, and many of them were unarmed. (The History of Irgun.)
The Sixth Airborne Division became a favorite target of the Jewish terrorists. In 1946, a taxi full of terrorists opened fire on officers of the Sixth Airborne as they dined. In 1947, the Jewish terrorists blew up the Goldsmith Officers’ Club, killing 13 British officers, and wounding another 18. In order to regain some control, the British implemented martial law. During this period, a total of 68 terroristic acts committed by Jewish terrorists occurred. Two British officers (Paice and Martin) were kidnapped and hung. The area around their bodies, which were found hanging in the trees, was mined. One of the mines exploded, severely injuring another British officer. (Jew Watch.)
Eventually, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion rounded up Irgun and forcibly disarmed them. The Israeli military became the central focus, as the first war of independence began. For a while, Jewish terrorism left the spotlight, as the entire nation struggled for existence.
Religious Extremists in Israel.
Eventually, as Israel stabilized, the fight for a Jewish homeland became less important, and religion became more important. Religious zealots were no longer satisfied with the territory they had. They wanted to rid the Gaza strip and the West Bank of all Arab influence. Under the leadership of Rabbi Meir Kahane, a radical group of terrorists began a campaign of bombings and other events aimed at anyone supporting Israel’s disengagement from those Arab territories. Several groups identify with the Kahane movement, including the Kach party, the Jewish Front, the Jewish Legion, the Jewish Defense League, and the Jewish Defense Organization. Two of these organizations are based in the United States. (http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/kahane_2.asp)
Although Mier Kahane was assassinated in 1990, his legacy continues. The Kahane movement has been responsible for multiple terrorist attacks. In March, 2002, these extremists fashioned a time bomb and detonated it at a Palestinian school, injuring both students and teachers. They were responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Additionally, these Jewish terrorists attacked Muslims at the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron during Ramadan, killing 29 worshippers. (http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/kahane_2.asp)
The Kahane Movement’s activities are not limited to the Middle East. In 1993, they held an Al Qaeda style training camp in the Catskill Mountains in New York, training attendees in the use of weapons, fitness, and urban warfare. A base, which they maintain in Brooklyn, New York, was raided in 2001. Additionally, a planned assassination attempt on the life of Lebanese congressman Darrell Issa was thwarted in January of 2001. Irv Rubin, the group’s leader, committed suicide while awaiting trial. (http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/kahane_2.asp)
The Kahane Movement is still active. Kach party members threatened to assassinate Ariel Sharon when he agreed to pull out of illegal settlements. In May 2005, nine Jews were arrested for planning a missile attack on the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque. According to Israeli police, their purpose was to spark a war with the Arabs so that the world would turn against the Palestinians in their favor.
Other incidents linked to Jewish terrorists in America have occurred recently. A group of elderly Miami Jews was blamed for a drive by shooting in Gaza, and then for an attack on a bus in Gaza. That gunman was killed by an angry mob. (Gorin, J. 2004.)
In the 1980s, a group known as Terror against Terror, or TNT, under the leadership of Menachem Linvni, terrorized the Palestinian Arab population. They planted bombs in mosques, subjected Arabs to gang-style drive-by shootings, and attempted to kill three Palestinian mayors. Additionally, masked TNT gunmen entered an Islamic university in Hebron, wounding 36 Arabs and killing three. Carnage was narrowly averted when TNT attempted to blow up the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque. The terrorists smuggled over twenty pounds of explosives and almost two dozen Israeli issue hand grenades into the area before they fled. (The Washington Report, 1998.)
The Occupation is terrorism.
It is not only illegal terrorist groups that commit terrorism against the Palestinian people. For over 40 years, the Israelis have illegally occupied territory designated as a home for the Palestinians. They continue to bulldoze Palestinian homes to make way for new Israeli settlements. The Jews have managed to segregate and isolate the Palestinians, depriving them of basic needs.
In 1998, Israel began to construct the Har Homa settlement, which essentially closed access from the Arab part of Jerusalem to the West Bank. Even though there were UN discussions concerning their legality, the Israelis continued to build. The number of Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories now exceeds 400,000. (www.endtheoccupation.org) The way that the Israelis have built their settlements serves as a means by which they control the transportation routes throughout the West Bank and Gaza. When the Palestinians anger the Israelis, the Israelis are able to stop shipments of food, medicine, and other basic staples from entering the Palestinian territories. In order to build their new settlements, the Jews must displace the Palestinians who live there. Under the guise that Palestinian terrorists are conducting illegal activities there, the Jews raze their houses and confiscate Palestinian homes, often killing residents in the process.
Once, an American on a peace mission got in their way. Rachel Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement. The organization uses nonviolent means to protest illegal confiscation of Palestinian land. Corrie was standing in front of the home of a Palestinian physician in an attempt to prevent Israelis from bulldozing the structure. Witnesses and other internationals there with her said that Corrie was wearing a brightly colored jacket and waving to get the driver’s attention. He did not stop, and instead, ran over Rachel. The driver then put the bulldozer in reverse, backed up, and ran over Ms. Corrie again. Of course, the Israelis said that this was an accident. However, witness interviews show otherwise. Rachel Corrie’s was not an isolated incident. Many other incidences of the same sort have occurred. (USA Today, September, 2003.)
The Israeli government has long used terrorist tactics against the Palestinian people. During the war in Lebanon, Palestinians were forced into refugee camps as Israel drove them northward. When Israel invaded West Beirut, two of the Palestinian camps were attacked by the Phalange party of Lebanese Christians with the assistance of the Israeli army. The army lit flares to light the Phalangists’ way to Sabra and Shatila, the two Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of town. While Israeli solidiers stood guard, the Phalangists murdered between two and three thousand Palestinian men, women, and children. All of the refugees were unarmed. The bodies were often mutilated or sexually assaulted. The Israelis said they did not know what was going on inside the camps, but it would have been impossible for them not to hear the machine-gun fire and screams of the dying Palestinians. (Friedman, 1992.)
Conclusion:
It seems that although Israel would like for the world to believe that it is the innocent victim of terrorism, the facts reveal a much different picture. Israel, as much as the Palestinians, has continually used terror as a strategy designed to systematically remove Palestinian influence from the land they desire. They are motivated by religion, hatred, and prejudice. The Israeli Zionists will stop at nothing to rid the land of Arabs.
The media has created the idea that the Arabs are the only terrorists. It is true that Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and other radical groups have used terror tactics. However, they are not guiltier than the Israelis. The problem is that much of Israel’s terror tactics are funded by American dollars. They bulldoze Palestinian homes with American equipment, and each year America sends billions of dollars to Israel. Therefore, America is guilty by association.
The problem is that the Zionists influence so much of the American political realm. However, if America ever wants peace in the Middle East, the country must stop sending aid to Israel. America should instead send the unmistakable message that it will not tolerate terrorism, whether it is perpetrated by Arabs, or by Israel.

Follow Up

2008-01-17T14:20:00.000-08:00

to His Post, My Post...

This is the best part of all. After I posted my response, the professor posted this!!!

"There you go Paige! This is what I expected of this session. Thanks."

So you see, there are those of us who do know the truth!!!

Out Of Focus

2008-01-17T12:26:00.001-08:00

I am still at that point in life, rather latently, at which I am trying to decide what I want to be when I grow up. Today, my very good friend Glen read some of my writing - a journal post for one of my current classes. He believes that my true talent lies in expressing my thoughts through the written word. I love to write, but my problem is that I have no idea where to begin. I am a proverbial jack-of-all-trades. I know a little about a lot, but not a lot about one little thing. I've decided that my writing must be centered around something I enjoy, so I decided to write a list of those things:

chocolate
Chihuahuas
the Middle East
the Old West
painting
teaching
learning

How can I combine those things in order to come up with a viable topic? Let's see...

Middle Eastern Chihuahuas? That's weird.

Teaching horses how to paint? That's weirder.

I know: Going to the Old West to learn from a chihuahua how to paint using chocolate.

And better yet: Starting my own religion in which Middle Eastern horses worship Chihuahuas made out of chocolate.

So much for focus...

His post, My post.

2008-01-15T13:28:00.000-08:00

This is the kind of attitude I have to battle on a daily basis in my classroom. Here is a post by one of my fellow students:

"I think exaggeration and misinterpretation plays a large role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially when it comes to international opinion. Presently, as with every other issue facing the world today, international news media has a tendency to spin the truth in order to accomplish their own goals or pursue their own agenda. With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, international public opinion is often based on which outlet the general public derives their information. For example Fox News has a reputation for being fairly unbiased. This is not the case with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, considering they have a tendency to make it appear that the Arabs are "saints" and the Israelis are "war mongers." I visit the Fox News website daily and whenever their is an event in that part of the world involving Israeli military action and Arab casualties it makes front page on their website. However when their is a bus bombing in Tel Aviv for example, it is often pushed to the back and/or most of the story in focused on Israeli military response.."

My post:
"I think that Fox News has a reputation for putting a right-wing spin on news. Visit Al-Jazeera, BBC, and other sites, and you will see an entirely different spin. I don't think that any American news station makes Arabs look like saints. In fact, I think our media tends to villify them. When, in viewing anything on an American media outlet, do you ever see the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live, the persecution to which they are subjected, or the times that Jewish terrorists bomb their side of that abhorrent wall?"

Finished!

2007-11-13T10:34:00.000-08:00

This painting is finished! My next series of paintings will veer away from the cowboy theme, more than likely. What should I paint next? Dog family portraits? I have enough dogs to do that. LOL

Work in Progress

2007-10-22T06:48:00.000-07:00

I started this one last night, and decided that the rock formations in the foreground could use some texture. I textured them with a paper product that comes in a jar. It's kind of like prepared paper mache. I'll finish painting the canyon this evening.

What's in your Ipod?

2007-10-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

The contents of my Ipod are a genuine reflection of what a strange combination I am. My mother says I'm crazy. My friends label me eccentric. My poor husband just rolls his eyes at my endless rants about the injustices of the world. My daughter stuck a sequin in the middle of her forehead today. Yes, she knows it's her "third eye". Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to list the contents of my Ipod and tag a few people to see what they are listening to this week. Here goes!

Dean Martin
Cheb Kahled
Amr Diab
Metallica
Don Edwards (a cowboy singer)
Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Quebe Sisters (another Western Swing group. They do a lot of '40s cowboy tunes.)
Cake
Frank Sinatra
Nightwish
Fairuz
Flaco Jimenez (a Tejano artist from San Antonio)
Dwight Yoakum
Buck Owens
Evanescense
Rage Against the Machine

So what's in your Ipod? Tag. You're it.

Funny Chihuahua Stuff

2007-10-04T12:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.cafepress.com/dogs_of_war/

Apparently, I'm not the only chihuahua owner with a sense of humor. This site has the best T shirts and bumper stickers ever!

Don't Forget Pena

2007-10-03T18:20:00.000-07:00

The dog who saved our house deserves to be immortalized in paint. I want to always remember his adorable little googly eyes.

2007-09-27T11:14:00.000-07:00

Tuesday afternoon, my husband Jeff called my cell phone to tell me that the electric was off at home. That is typical of a stormy day at my rural Oklahoma residence. I called the electric company so that they would come and check out the problem. When Piper and I drove into the driveway, Jeff was outside. He said, "No need going in the house. It's dark and you can't see." So, we stood outside waiting for the electric company to arrive.

I could see from the carport that there was one wire hanging down from the power line, where it should not have been. The electric company workers took a big pole with a claw on the end and snapped the wire back into its connector. They checked to make sure the meter was running, which it was. We stood around their truck talking for a few minutes.

All of a sudden, one of my Chihuahuas, Pena, came running out to the truck! He was acting very strangely, and he was out of the house. Pena never leaves the house without me there with him. I know that our storm door will open if you push hard enough on it, despite the latch. Pena somehow managed to open the storm door and run to me. I asked my daughter Piper to go and make sure the door was shut because I know it is hard enough to catch one runaway Chihuahua. I did not want to think about trying to catch seven of them. Piper went to the door and screamed at the top of her lungs, "MOM! DAD! FIRE!"

The electric company men came running with fire extinguishers and doused the flames, which were already leaping up the living room wall. Apparently, when they reconnected the electric wire, there was a power surge that shorted out a circuit in the wall. The lamp plugged into that socket took the brunt of it and caught fire! I lost a table, lamp, some collectibles, and a book. The wall is charred and the ceiling is black. Everything smells like burning plastic and electric wires. I did manage to rush all the Chihuahuas out of the house, even though Loco hid in the bathroom like a scared child. He was the only one who suffered from smoke inhalation.

If it were not for Pena, my house would have burned down! If the electric had come back on while I was still at work, my house would have burned down! . I am taking Pena’s story to the newspaper because I think he deserves to be called a hero. He deserves a story in the paper and steak every night.

I Love My Horse!

2007-09-19T14:18:00.000-07:00

Every evening, my first chore upon my arrival at home is to feed the horses. My Arabian is already there at the fence, his soft brown eyes following me from the feed bins to the trough. He is a stately, elegant gelding; a bay with a milky white blaze, a black flowing mane, and rippling muscles. His name is Khair ad-Din, which roughly means “Goodness of the Religion”. It is also the nickname given to Red Beard the Pirate by the Arabian rulers who cherished his protection from invaders on the Mediterranean Sea. While he is standing impatiently, waiting for me to scoop his oats and sweet feed into his feeder, I wonder if Khair ad-Din knows how regal and interesting his genealogy is.

Arabians are the oldest breed of horse; the breed has been found in carvings in ancient Egypt from at least 5,000 years ago. These horses were bred by the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula for their agility, strength, speed, and bravery on the battlefield. The Prophet Mohammed treasured his Arabians, and instructed Muslims to treat them with kindness. Mohammed proclaimed that Arabian horses were special gifts from Allah, and whoever took care of them well would be rewarded in the afterlife. The Bedouins heeded Mohammed’s words, and zealously maintained the best breeding in their herds. (AHA, paragraphs 1-5.)

It was imperative for the Bedouin tribes to preserve the purity of the Arabian horse. They kept diligent records of their horse breeding programs, not allowing for flaws in temperament, appearance, or genetic background. More recently, Mohamed Ali the Great ruled Egypt when it was part of the Turkish Empire. He was religiously dedicated to the preservation of the bloodlines of the best Arabian horses. As part of a peace treaty with Arabia, Mohamed Ali demanded the Arabian’s best desert horses. He built the largest herd of the most superior Arabians in Egypt; thus establishing the Egyptian Arabian breeding programs. Mohammed Ali’s grandson, Abbas Pasha, inherited this herd, from which many international champions have descended.

Khair ad-Din can trace his ancestry to many horses from Abbas Pasha’s herd. One of these is Mesaoud, who was bred by Ali Pasha Sherif in Egypt. He was imported to Crabbet Park Stud in England in 1891, where he was sold to Count Branicki in 1903 and sent to Kiev, Russia. Mesaoud sired ninety-seven registered purebred Arabian foals.

The Arabian horses made such an impression on Europeans that many wealthy, prominent royal families began to import them to parts of Europe. One of the main importers was Lady Anne Blunt, who kept some of her horses at her Sheykh Obeyd Stud Farm in Egypt, and some at her Crabbet Stud Farm in England. The Egyptians finally realized the importance and value of the Arabian horses there and in 1908, they formed the Royal Agricultural Society which gathered the best of the Abbas Pasha and Ali Pasha Sherif herds with the intent of keeping them in Egypt. Today, the Royal Agricultural Society is known as the Egyptian Agricultural Organization. (El_ZahraaStud online, paragraph 5.)

Many of Khair ad-Din’s ancestors are also Crabbet Stock. Raffles was a stallion imported in 1932 from the Crabbet Stud Farm. He stood barely 13.4 hands tall, which means he was no larger than a pony. This amazing little horse suffered a broken leg at age 23, which is nearly always fatal. However, thanks to the devotion and care of his owners, he not only survived, but lived to sire another fifteen foals. Raffles was one of the most influential Arabian stallions of all time. He originally came to the Crabbet Stud Farm by way of Poland. (http://www.arabs-iowa.com/AFH-Raffles.htm)

The Arabian horse so impressed enemies on the battlefield, that it became popular for armies to take the horses as spoils of war. This is the case with the Arabian horses of Poland, where breeders maintained the same diligent breeding program as the desert Bedouins, allowing no tainted bloodlines into their herds. During World War II, Nazis took many of the Polish horses with the goal of establishing a superior breed; a German elite equine herd. They feared for the safety of the horses, and when the Nazis were captured, they begged their American captors to free the horses. Although many Arabians perished in World War II, some, including my horse’s ancestors, lived. The U.S. Army brought them to America. (AHA, paragraph 5.) That is how many of the successful Arabian breeding programs in America began.

The Crabbet Park Arabians were not the first to be imported to England. As early as 1683 three Arabian stallions (the Darley Arabian, the Byerly Turk and the Godolphin Arabian) were imported to England. These three stallions produced the Thoroughbred horse, the descendents of whom can all be traced to these three Arabian sires. Khair ad-Din can trace his lineage to the Godolphin Arabian, a pedigree of which any horse would be proud. (Thoroughbred Heritage Online, paragraph 2.)

My Khair ad-Din probably does not know how much blood from international champions runs through his veins. I doubt he knows that Bask and Bay el Bey, are his great-great sires, or that they are so important to the breed that books have been written about them. It is certain that he does not know how Bask came to America. It was the worst Polish winter in a century in 1963. Fifteen highly pedigreed Arabian horses boarded a ship bound for New York City. They sailed on a ship for forty-four days from Europe to reach the United States. Bask’s ship was caught in a storm so fierce that most of the other horses on board died, but Bask survived. He lost over a hundred pounds and was injured badly, but Bask lived to sire 500 champions. (Horses, etc., paragraph 3.) My horse does not understand that Bay el Bey won seven national championships and commanded a stud fee of over ten thousand dollars way back in the 1970s. (Arabian Legends, p. 74)

Of course, not all Arabians came to America by way of Poland. Many horses are still directly imported from the Middle East. Such is the case with another of the stallions in my horse’s pedigree. Ansata Ibn Halima, the horse credited with reviving interest in Egyptian horses, came to Oklahoma in 1959. Americans Don and Judi Forbis purchased Ansata Ibn Halima along with two other mares for $15,000; an incredible sum of money at that time. He was a unique stallion with a personality that captivated the Forbis couple. Ibn Halima means “Son of the Gentle One”, a name fitting for this kind and gentle stallion. He sired 259 champions during his lifetime. (Arabian Legends, p. 102)

Many famous people have chosen Arabian horses as their mounts in war and for pleasure. George Washington, the first President of the United States, rode an Arabian horse. General Ulysses S. Grant rode Leopard, a prized stallion given to him by Abdul Hamid II, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey. Alexander the Great, Saladin, and Genghis Khan all rode Arabians, and Napoleon Bonaparte rode an Arabian named Marengo. (FarField Arabians Online; home page.)

No, Khair ad-Din does not fathom the importance of the Arabians who came before him. He only understands his importance to me, and to him, I am as important as George Washington. He nuzzles my hand so that I will rub behind his ears and kiss his nose before I leave the pasture for the evening.

The Role of Demographics, Religion, Economics, and History in Understanding the Complexity of the Middle East

2007-07-05T06:30:00.000-07:00

It is difficult to separate religion, economics, and demographics from history, because they are components of, and results of the history of the region. Mohammed’s establishment of the religion of Islam allowed for the development of a unique Muslim identity, which the Prophet successfully spread throughout the region. The religion innately created a sense of unity among its adherents. Muslims across the empire prayed in unison, facing the direction of Mecca each day. They adhered to the teachings of the Quran, and to the hadith, which are sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. After the death of Mohammed, Islam became fragmented. The rift between the followers of Ali, and those of the caliph appointed by Mohammed to lead the faith, led to the present day struggle between the Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq. The Shi’a became the dominate sect in Iran, which sponsors insurgents in Iraq, and provides funding to Hezbollah. Turkey, even though it is not Arab, shares much culturally with the Arab nations because of the influence of Islam. Much of the history of each of the nations in the Middle East is comprised of the influence of the religion, and religion is integral to the culture of the Muslim world.
Empirical history has also influenced the culture of the region. One must only visit the Roman and Greek ruins in Syria, Libya, Lebanon or the other adjacent nations to see the ancient remains of that culture. The Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Phoenicians, and even the occasional pirate took turns governing the region. Khair ad-din, the Muslim Pirate known as Red Beard, was well known in the Mediterranean region The Ottoman Empire and the Persians changed the demographics of the region. The introduction of their respective cultures also influenced and changed Middle Eastern culture. (www.wikipedia.com)
Tribal roots which can be traced back thousands of years are also integral to the history and culture of the region. The Bedouins were nomadic Arabs who migrated throughout the region seasonally. Their nomadic lifestyle is a threat to urban leaders, who attempt to decide ownership of land and payment of taxes. Neither of these lends itself to the Bedouin lifestyle. As a result, Bedouins often remain allegiant to their own tribe rather than to the nation in which they reside. Muslim expansion in the 7th century only increased their territory and wealth. Part of what defines Arabs is their genealogical relation to the tribes of the Arabian peninsula before the advent of Islam.(www.lexicorient.com)
During and after the era of colonization Western powers like Britain and the United States affected the Middle East culturally. The Western superpowers took the initiative to spread their ideologies and culture to that area of the world, which to them, was uncivilized. The French and Italians also influenced the culture of their neighbors. In Morocco and Lebanon the recognized second language after Arabic is French. In Libya, much of the population speaks fluent Italian.
The economies of Middle Eastern nations are also a result of history. The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries, led to a new sort of colonization, or neo-imperialism. More powerful nations, greedy for control of the oil reserves of the Middle East, continue to indirectly control politics there. Additionally, the West still exports its culture, music, and blue jeans to the Middle East. The pitiful situation in Gaza and the West Bank can be attributed to historical events as well. Israel was created by the West as a home for the Jewish people, who displaced the Palestinians who were already living there. Israel’s mere existence has created havoc in the Middle East, as fleeing Palestinians moved into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The plight of the Palestinians served to further unify Arabs against Israel and their Western backers.
It is a combination of religion, demographics, and economic factors which have contributed to the culture of the Middle East. More importantly, it is history (which is a combination of the other factors) that is the determinant of culture there.

Busy, Busy, Busy

2007-06-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

There are not enough hours in the day for me to post, instant message, or do any online activity other than school. I haven't forgotten anyone, especially Dubai Jazz. I just need to be cloned so I can send my clone to work, to my daughter's activities, and to take care of the animals. That way, I can be free to post. LOL

Without Fences

2007-04-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

To those who inflame:

I have no fences, I need no mending.

I love bluebonnets, sunshine, friends, and fresh air, but I don't need your kind of love.

Spelling is good for the soul. It makes you look more intelligent.

Bluebonnets don't really grow in Oklahoma, but they do grow close to Austin. Recently.

In the name of...

2007-04-19T14:09:00.000-07:00

One of the most memorable occasions in my life was the time I attended church with my third grade pal, Angela. I felt uncomfortable with religion even in my early years, so this was something in which I did not typically participate willingly. However, it was one of the few times my parents had allowed me to venture away from home for an entire evening. At the age of eight, that was a privilege that I thought was an adequate trade for one hour of my time in a place I did not with to be. Angela and I could make up for it later at the pizza place. Going out for pizza was a real treat!

My mother snickered as I left the house that afternoon. “Have fun,” she laughed. Completely ignorant about the evening’s activities to come, I was unshakeable. My mother knew only too well what I was about to experience. She was raised by a mother who was a member of the Church of God, similar to the Assembly of God I was to attend that evening.

It was not long until I discovered why my mother was laughing as I left the house. The service began as the other Protestant services I had attended. However, it soon became apparent that this was a whole other ball game. The preacher began to wail and speak in tongues. The congregation reciprocated with tears and a chorus of syllables I am still unable to fathom. Crying women fell to the floor in what appeared to be a dead faint. Children cried because they were supposed to cry. Men, hands in the air, cried out to their God for salvation, mercy, forgiveness, and whatever else came to mind. I was completely horrified at what I thought was erratic, illogical behavior. I have always been a sort of Mr. Spock. One eyebrow raised, hand in a Vulcan greeting sign, I would spout, “That is highly illogical!” to anything with which I disagreed. I decided right then that I would never be tricked into attending another church service. It took four pieces of sausage pizza and thirty-two years of avoiding evangelicals to heal my mental wounds that evening. “Very funny,” I grouched at my mother. She just laughed.

Several years ago, my cousin invited me to attend an event with her in Oklahoma City. Unaccustomed to the boredom of living in a small town, I happily agreed. I asked her where we were going, to which she replied, “We’re going to see a speaker for women.” I expected a feministic sort atmosphere, like the ones I witnessed at events for women in Austin before my move. However, I neglected to ask the appropriate questions, such as, “Where is the event being held?” I doubt I would have gotten a truthful answer anyway.

As we approached the huge, obvious mega-church I felt a sudden desire to bolt from the car and run to the nearest store to call for help. I could not, though, for the sake of keeping the family peace. Inside, I felt trapped. Church in a basketball arena, loudspeakers everywhere, obvious fundamentalism pervasive in the crowd, there was nowhere to run. I took the attitude that I would watch people as if I were at a circus or a Medieval Fair.

Joyce Meyer was the “speaker for women.” I recognized her face from sessions in which my friends and I would flip through the late-night cable offerings looking for something funny. TBS and its evangelical television peers were always among the funniest programming available. First, there was Tammy Faye Baker. Then, after Jim’s downfall, there was the lady with the pink wig who managed to outdo even Tammy Faye’s tasteless wardrobe and makeup.

Joyce Meyer proceeded to whip the crowd into a feverish, fanatic frenzy. They wailed, they cried, they prayed while the television evangelist plied them for offerings. When she began to speak in tongues, I decided enough was enough! I looked straight into her eyes (probably my favorite church-related moment), gave her a look of utter disgust, rolled my eyes, and, turning to my cousin, excused myself to the hallway, where I remained for the rest of the evening. I never again went anywhere with my cousin unless I knew exactly where we were going and that it had nothing to do with religion.

I suppose I find fanaticism, in any form, to be completely disdainful. To me, religion is deeply personal. It is not a circus, not a show for the benefit of the entertainment of others. No one should approach me and say, “Welcome to our town. What church do you attend?” That is the fastest way to get me to respond with something atrociously vile. I do not think a place of worship is a place to socialize. I believe that prayer or meditation should be silent or inconspicuous. I do not care to know a person’s religious affiliation, and I do not wish to wear my beliefs on my sleeve.
Through my study of religion, I have discovered that there is no single path to heavenly reward. It is certainly not through ceremony that one reaches Nirvana, Heaven, Paradise, or whatever one wishes to call it. It is through the common ethical basis of religion that people are rewarded. Every major religion teaches its followers some semblance of the Ten Commandments. Do not steal, do not kill, be chaste, do not drink or take drugs, be truthful, honor your parents, understand that there is a higher power or higher goal to be attained, do not worship (or become overly attached to) material things. These are the lessons that are lost in the rituals that go along with religion. I have seen the destruction that accompanies religion when its followers decide to exalt their religion above that of others. I am adamantly opposed to fanaticism.

What is a Family?

2007-03-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

In my lifetime, I have learned several things. One is that "family" does not always fit the standard definition. As an only child, I am accustomed to my small family, which now consists of my mother, my husband, my child, one elderly uncle in Texas, and me. Do I have other family members? You bet I do. We have the most wonderful friends in the world. These are people who always return our friendship and anything we do for them to the power of 10. What is unique about our friendship? Our friends speak little English! They are from Mexico and are managers of a ranch close to our home. Fortunately, I speak Spanish.

We have become such good friends that we now call them our familia - our family. Their children and my child are extremely close. We travel together, ride horses together, eat dinner together, shop together, help each other build fences and buildings, share our belongings, etc. I could not have asked for better family members!

This relationship shows several things:

1. Sometimes, strangers make better family than family itself. Our bloodline is not the same, but I think people need to realize that bloodlines aren't always that important.

2. People of completely different backgrounds, cultures, and races can not only live side by side in peace, but they can find common ground and build strong ties between them.

3. Sharing a common language or heritage does not make someone more of a brother to those people who share the same language or heritage. We are all human, and we have an equal amount in common regardless of language or heritage.

A Very Texan Painting

2007-03-20T12:40:00.000-07:00

A Texas Longhorn that lives on my wall.

Ramen!

2007-03-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

This is one of my favorite websites:

http://www.venganza.org/

I am absolutely opposed to the integration of religion into government and public affairs. There is a reason for that. It isn't that I don't believe in God, but I don't happen to believe in God the exact same way as most of the other people in my geographic proximity.

I know who I am. In case you aren't sure who you are, here's where you can find out:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

2007-03-14T20:31:00.000-07:00

An old western ghost town I painted. I can just hear the theme from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

The Red Baron

2007-03-14T13:47:00.000-07:00

Why, you may ask, did I choose the Red Baron as my pseudonym for the blogsphere? Baron Manfred von Richthofen represents a bygone era in which people were more genteel, more mannerly, and more civilized, even in times of war. Instead of severing his opponent's head or torturing the enemy, the Red Baron would land his dreaded red flying machine and find the pilot he had shot down. If the man needed medical attention, the Red Baron would see to it that he received the care he needed. Once, after a particularly challenging flight during which his British opponent nearly shot him down, Baron von Richthofen summoned medical assistance for the badly wounded man. He then discovered to which hospital the ambulance had taken his opponent. That British pilot was rendered absolutely speechless when he received a box of expensive cigars at his hospital suite. They were from the Red Baron! The German hero wanted to congratulate his opponent on a fight well fought!

That is why I chose the Red Baron as my pseudonym. I would like to think that I can perpetuate a bit of his character. Baron von Richthofen was not a bloodthirsty villian who enjoyed the death of people with whom he did not agree. I think that he understood humility, civility, and ethics; qualities we all need to embody in the 21st century.

2007-03-13T07:49:00.000-07:00

My most recent work is a mural I painted on the wall behind my antique Mexican bar. That's my palomino horse, the main subject, of course.

The only thing that can make time stand still, make me forget all my worries, free my spirit, and express the real me is my paintbrush.

Just because he is quiet doesn't mean he's behaving.

2007-03-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

Considering the history of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and of Libya, it is very probable that the IRA has continued to maintain contact with Libyan sponsors. The IRA has always been an organization which participates in guerilla warfare, buying weapons secretly, and relying on outside funding for its support. Although the IRA claimed in 2005 that it was ending its armed campaign, if it rescinds this claim it would not be the first time.[1] Its violent activity waxes and wanes, but the IRA has existed for nearly one hundred years. The main reasons for its advent have not disappeared, so it is unlikely that the IRA will disband anytime soon. As long as the IRA exists, it will continue to rely on secretive financing and guerilla warfare to achieve its goals.

The IRA formed as a nationalist group in favor of a united Ireland independent from the United Kingdom. It is not a national army and received no governmental support. As a result, the IRA has had to rely on whatever strategies inflict the maximum casualties, provide the most media coverage, and provoke the greatest reaction from the enemy. In 1919, the IRA’s Director of Intelligence organized a unit he called “The Squad”, the purpose of which was to serve as a group of assassins who would kill police involved in the effort to uncover information about the IRA.[2] Additionally, since the Irish Republican army could not adequately wage conventional warfare, it was reorganized into “flying columns”[3] which were guerilla style units with bases hidden in remote mountainous areas. Even after successive reorganizations in 1920-1921, the IRA maintained its guerilla strategy. By 1921, there were less than 3,000 guerilla fighters left in the IRA. By 1922, their training and recruiting efforts allowed the IRA’s membership to swell to approximately 72,000 men.[4] The IRA may temporarily decline in strength, but like weeds in a garden, it always comes back.

In 2005, the IRA issued a statement declaring its commitment to disarm. It ordered its units to dump their weapons and outlined the IRA’s pledge to pursue a peaceful solution. However, the document clearly states that the IRA remains dedicated to a united, independent Ireland. This is not the first time the IRA has declared a cease-fire. However, it is the first time the IRA has agreed to disarmament.[5] What is the difference in disarmament and a cease-fire? That is left to interpretation. Does the IRA mean that it is permanently disarming, or is it just disarming for the moment? There are many other instances in which the IRA has insisted on a peaceful cease-fire. In 1994, Sinn Fein began talks with the British after the IRA declared a cease-fire. However, it did not take long for the IRA to begin its campaign of terrorist bombings again. Unless there is a fundamental change in the attitude of the British loyalists in Northern Ireland, there will still be reason for the IRA to exist. According to the postings about this topic at http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?topic=16850, the tension between the loyalists and the republicans has not diminished.[6] It seems that the bitterness, hatred, and separation between the two groups is still strong.

Libya is an oil-rich nation, and its leader, Moammar Qadafi, is bitter toward the West. Anything he can do as revenge for the bombing of Tripoli, he will. The planes the United States used in the bombing were launched from Great Britain. As a result, he has a great deal of animosity toward the British, a common sentiment of the IRA By remaining anonymous, but waging war by proxy, Qadafi is able to continue to avenge himself without suffering the consequences of openly declaring war. [7]

Qadafi has, in the past, provided monetary support as well as weapons and training. A ship en route from Libya was captured by police in Waterford Bay in 1973. It was carrying five tons of arms. This was the first of many such interceptions. As recently as 1987, the French intercepted another ship bound for Ireland, containing SAM missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar bombs, all bound for Ireland. In 1983, an IRA operative known only as “Cassidy” met a Libyan in the airport in Tripoli. They exchanged suitcases. Cassidy’s was empty, but the Libyan’s contained cash intended for financing the IRA. In all, estimates show that Libya gave approximately 6.75 million British pounds to the IRA over the past three decades. .[8]

With the surge in Islamic fundamentalism and its bitterness toward the West, it is likely that Qadafi’s attitude towards Britain has become more rather than less hateful. Fearing that he might suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein, it is in his best interest to remain behind the scenes in any attack on the West. Given these circumstances along with the instability of the relationship between the IRA and the loyalists, it is likely that the IRA has continued to maintain a relationship with Libya that provides each with political might.

[1] Irish Republican Army. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from: http://www.brittanica.com
[2] Chronology of the Irish War of Independence. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from: http://www.answers.com/topic/irish-republican-army
[3] Ibid.
[4] Coogan, T. (1990). Michael Collins. Dublin: Hutchinson.
[5] IRA Statement, 28 July, 2005. Retrieved February 7, 2007 from: politics.ie
[6] http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?topic=16850
[7] Retrieved February 8, 2007 from: http://victims.org.uk/libyanconnection.html
[8] Ibid.

The Skirt People Stole My Dog!

2007-03-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

Here in Oklahoma, we have a group of right-wing Christian fundamentalists I refer to as Skirt People. The women wear skirts only (no pants allowed!) and do not cut their hair. They also wear no makeup. In their church services, they often "speak in tongues", wail, testify, and fall to the floor in a faint. They believe that they are overcome by the "Holy Spirit".

The Skirt People were among the first to welcome me into the neighborhood. "Hi, my name is ___. Do you have a church here yet?" Anyone who knows me understands that this is NOT the proper way to gain my trust or friendship. To an unsuspecting outsider, I suppose that my blue eyes and pale skin shield my inner being, and make me appear to be more similar than dissimilar from the typical Bible Belt resident.

On Valentine's Day, my dog disappeared. Gravy always comes home in the evening, even if he succeeds in climbing over, burrowing under, or chewing through the fence, chain, or other restraint to which he is bound. On this day, the coldest of the year, I called until my throat was as scratchy and dry as sandpaper, and Gravy never came. We live way out in the country, several miles from town. I assumed that my poor little dog had become a coyote's dinner or had frozen during the night.

Driving into town to take my daughter to her troop meeting (I am the Brownie Scout Leader), on a whim, I drove the couple of blocks off Green Avenue to the animal shelter. There, in the dark and the cold, 8 miles from home, was my dog! I frantically called the police and told them to stop the dogcatcher from his weekly death march until I could come and pick up Gravy. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how the dog ended up at the pound so far from home!

It was several days later at the grocery store where a Skirt Person who lives close to my house asked, "Did you ever pick up your dog from the pound?"

"WHAT?" I must have turned pale as a ghost.

"Some friends of ours picked up your dog and brought him to our house. I told them he was your dog, but he ran away before we could catch him to bring him back. Then, I saw him in the pound, so I wondered if you ever went to get him," explained the Skirt Person.

So, the Skirt People stole, pilfered, lifted, kidnapped my dog! Ah....religious fanaticism. Go to church every Sunday (and Wednesday), dress so that you symbolize so-called religious purity, wail, scream and cry, speak in tongues, and then break the Commandment; THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!!! It would have been nice if the Skirt People had let me know what happened to my dog. It was a fluke, an unlikely chance, that I drove by the pound. If I had not driven by, my dog would have been euthanized and I never would have known what happened to him.

What church/temple/synagogue/mosque/meeting do I attend? One that teaches the adherants to the faith not to steal/prosletyze/publicly make a spectacle of oneself in the name of religion. Does God listen to me, even though dogs run amuck in my house? Yes. Why? Because I don't steal...

2007-03-06T13:03:00.000-08:00

I legally stole this article, and am posting it with permission. I have to put up with the right-wing Christians on a daily basis. Just because I am Caucasian, just because I am an American, they think that I agree with them and their belief system. Those who know me well know this is absolutely not the case. Actually, this article pretty well summarizes my thoughts on the matter, which are a bit out of sync with the Oklahoma norm. The next time someone here introduces himself/herself by inviting me to his/her church, I think I'm going to put a giant Buddah in my front yard...a giant, gold Buddah and a meditation alter.

There is actually a segment of our society that wants to establish this nation as a Christian theocracy. The fact that in the United States of America, a part of our population is so narrow-minded and intolerant is truly appalling. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I would choose to go somewhere else. I am not an intolerant person. I simply believe that religion is a very personal, private matter. I don't wish to impose my beliefs on anyone else, and I think others should refrain from prosletyzing to those of us who aren't interested in listening.

Enough of my rant. Here's the article:

Is the United States a "Christian nation"? Some Americans think so. Religious Right activists and right-wing television preachers often claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. Even some politicians agree. If the people who make this assertion are merely saying that most Americans are Christians, they might have a point. But those who argue that America is a Christian nation usually mean something more, insisting that the country should be officially Christian. The very character of our country is at stake in the outcome of this debate.
Religious Right groups and their allies insist that the United States was designed to be officially Christian and that our laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity. Is this viewpoint accurate? Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our government believe this or intend to create a government that gave special recognition to Christianity?
The answer to all of these questions is no. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion. Many were believers themselves. Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores.
Many colonies, for example, had provisions limiting public office to "Trinitarian Protestants" and other types of laws designed to prop up the religious sentiments of the politically powerful. Some colonies had officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them, whether they were members or not. Dissenters faced imprisonment, torture and even death.
These arrangements led to bitterness and sectarian division. Many people began agitating for an end to "religious tests" for public office, tax subsidies for churches and other forms of state endorsement of religion. Those who led this charge were not anti-religion. Indeed, many were members of the clergy and people of deep piety. They argued that true faith did not need or want the support of government.
Respect for religious pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.
While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all.
Jefferson and Madison's viewpoint also carried the day when the Constitution, and later, the Bill of Rights, were written. Had an officially Christian nation been the goal of the founders, that concept would appear in the Constitution. It does not. Instead, our nation's governing document ensures religious freedom for everyone.
Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."
Some pastors who favored church-state union were outraged and delivered sermons asserting that the United States would not be a successful nation because its Constitution did not give special treatment to Christianity. But many others welcomed the new dawn of freedom and praised the Constitution and the First Amendment as true protectors of liberty.
Early national leaders understood that separation of church and state would be good for all faiths including Christianity. Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."
Other early U.S. leaders echoed that view. President George Washington, in a famous 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., celebrated the fact that Jews had full freedom of worship in America. Noted Washington, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."
Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…."
Admittedly, the U.S. government has not always lived up to its constitutional principles. In the late 19th century especially, officials often promoted a de facto form of Protestantism. Even the U.S. Supreme Court fell victim to this mentality in 1892, with Justice David Brewer declaring in Holy Trinity v. United States that America is "a Christian nation."
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….
- U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1797
It should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.
A more accurate judicial view of the relationship between religion and government is described by Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
A determined faction of Christians has fought against this wise and time-tested policy throughout our history. In the mid 19th century, several efforts were made to add specific references to Christianity to the Constitution. One group, the National Reform Association (NRA), pushed a "Christian nation" amendment in Congress in 1864. NRA members believed that the Civil War was divine punishment for failing to mention God in the Constitution and saw the amendment as a way to atone for that omission.
The NRA amendment called for "humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." Ten years later, the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption. The committee noted "the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World" and said in light of that it was felt "inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine."
Similar theocratic proposals resurfaced in Congress sporadically over the years. As late as 1950, a proposal was introduced in the Senate that would have added language to the Constitution that "devoutly recognizes the Authority and Law of Jesus Christ, Saviour and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of liberty." This amendment was never voted out of committee. Efforts to revive it in the early 1960s were unsuccessful.
Today, America's religious demographics are changing, and diversity has greatly expanded since our nation's founding. The number of Jews has increased, and more Muslims are living in America than ever before. Other religions now represented in America include Hinduism, Buddhism and a myriad others. In addition, many Americans say they have no religious faith or identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or Humanists. According to some scholars, over 2,000 distinct religious groups and denominations exist in the United States.
Also, even though most Americans identify as Christian, this does not mean they would back official government recognition of the Christian faith. Christian denominations disagree on points of doctrine, church structure and stands on social issues. Many Christians take a moderate or liberal perspective on church-state relations and oppose efforts to impose religion by government action.
Americans should be proud that we live in a democracy that welcomes persons of many faiths and none. Around the globe, millions of people still dwell under oppressive regimes where religion and government are harshly commingled. (Iran and the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan are just two examples.) Many residents of those countries look to the United States as beacon of hope and a model for what their own nations might someday become.
When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
- Justice John Paul Stevens
Only the principle of church-state separation can protect America's incredible degree of religious freedom. The individual rights and diversity we enjoy cannot be maintained if the government promotes Christianity or if our government takes on the trappings of a "faith-based" state.
The United States, in short, was not founded to be an officially Christian nation or to espouse any official religion. Our government is neutral on religious matters, leaving such decisions to individuals. This democratic and pluralistic system has allowed a broad array of religious groups to grow and flourish and guarantees every individual American the right to determine his or her own spiritual path or to reject religion entirely. As a result of this policy, Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any people in world history. We should be proud of this accomplishment and work to preserve the constitutional principle that made it possible separation of church and state.
If you would like to learn more about this issue, please contact Americans United for Separation of Church and State at our national headquarters in Washington, D.C. We have a wide range of books, fact sheets and other literature about church-state separation. We welcome your comments and your support.
© Americans United for Separation of Church and State518 C Street NE, Washington, DC 20002(202) 466-3234 fax (202) 466-2587americansunited@au.org
Privacy Policy Security Policy

Monday Afternoon

2007-03-05T13:02:00.000-08:00

Other people spend time blogging about the details of their mundane little lives. I choose to blog about the details of all of our lives. Today, I think I'll write about martyrs. Here's my bit of wisdom for the day.

Sean South was an IRA military leader who was killed in an attempt to overtake a police station in Northern Ireland on New Years Day, 1957. The IRA group he commanded trapped the policemen inside the building, and then planted mines outside. The mines did not detonate, and in the ensuing battle, Sean South died.[1] He became a sort of martyr for the Republican cause in much the same way as Hezbollah members become martyrs for their cause.

The struggle of the Irish Republicans against the British loyalists bears some resemblances to the fight of Hezbollah against Israel, in that the IRA is not a national army, but rather one that resorts to unconventional warfare, it is struggling against a group which is supported by another nation which is seen as the oppressor, and there is a difference of religion amongst the people.

Much like members of the Shi’a, who mostly come from the impoverished suburbs of southern Beirut, Sean South grew up in an economically disadvantaged area. He had only been to Northern Ireland a few times, but he perceived that the British loyalists there who were more wealthy, were the reason for his woes. Sean became the subject of a folk ballad, which helped to bolster him to the level of folk hero. He became a sort of icon representing the struggle of the Republicans against the loyalists.[2]

Like Hezbollah, the Irish Republican army is fighting against an entire nation, which enjoys support from an outside country. Hezbollah is struggling against Israel, which has continued to expand into Lebanese territory, has caused economic problems and displacement for Palestinians, and garners support from the United States, among others. The British loyalists in Northern Ireland enjoy the support of Great Britain, to whose queen they are allegiant. The Irish Republicans tend to be less wealthy, were displaced by the loyalists who took their land, and see Great Britain as a third party invader which should not be involved in their struggle. Additionally, religion factors into both struggles. Hezbollah is made up of Shi’a Muslims, whereas Israel is a Jewish state. In Ireland, the Republicans are Irish Catholics, for the most part, and the British loyalists are Protestants.

Because Sean South represented all of what the IRA stands for, he is viewed as a sort of martyr. Even though the religious connotations are a bit different, the basic reason for his glorification is the same. He is a symbol of the intensity of the Republican struggle against Northern Ireland, just as Hezbollah fighters are symbols against the Palestinian struggle against Israel.
[1] Sean South. Retrieved on February 7, 2007 from: www.answers.com

[2] Sean South, Murderer, NORAID Hero. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from: http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/south.html

All About Me

2007-02-22T10:33:00.000-08:00

I think too much. I've been told that since I was old enough to rebel against Sunday School. I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge that draws me to books, the Internet, and people. Finding time to blog is going to be the biggest challenge for me. I am usually busy painting, taking care of my many animals, or being Mom. When I'm not doing any of those things, I am reading or writing, usually for school. I have attended school far more than I have been out of school. When I am 80, if I'm still alive, I will still be studying, learning...