Nice Day. Little Cold, Though *shiver*
I guess my mom decided today was a minimal heat day. It's getting very cool in here.
Mmm.. cornish game hens make good Thanksgiving dinner. I'm the anti-traditional one.. I really dislike turkey. It's so bland and dry-tasting. I always push for hens, ham, or steak on Turkey Day. Last year I lost out, so I'm glad there was concession this time. :)
Now I'm left wandering around the web bored, much as I did last night..
There was a multiple stabbing this week at the high school in the Indiana town where my brother goes (and parents went) to university.
The Iranians seem very attached to their dubious nuclear plants. Too bad. Free nations are so far following the correct path - aggressive diplomacy to bring to an end any nuclear programs which could provide starting materials to build weapons. If Iran should continue to thumb its nose... we may be embroiled in Iraq, but our B-2s aren't busy anymore.
Zarqawi vented about not getting enough props from Muslim clerics around the world. Of course, he's too rabidly xenophobic to think for a moment that the reason devout believers in his own purported religion are refusing to support him is because what he's doing is blatantly contrary to the true spirit of his own faith. I go out on a limb in that last phrase, because I have not extensively studied Islam, but I would like to believe that the opinion quietly circulating among Christian Americans that "Islam is a religion of hate" is plain and simple 9/11 backlash. Christian theocracies, after all, did similar things for several hundred years, to their own people and to Muslims. It would most definitely be accurate to say that "any state or group can easily fall into venomous hatred against a perceived enemy or detractor."
However, I don't know. Could it be that Islam is an inherently militant and politicized faith, because of history and teaching included in its sacred texts? Or have Islamic nations merely lagged behind the rest of the world in political development away from theocracy? It's clear mankind has been slowly moving away from direct control of civil affairs by church authorities, or by officials acting openly on behalf of only one faith. That's because, given full power to govern, any religious group will eventually succumb to the temptation to use that power to assimilate as much of the population as possible, and marginalize other groups whose teachings conflict with their own. This doesn't always start out in a violent way, but it always results in violence sooner or later, because when you try to force or coerce a person's thinking and beliefs, you are invading his private life, and he will react with hostility. This also applies to anti-religious governments such as the Soviet Union, which saw widespread civil war and rebellion during its first several decades of life, and continued national problems of alcoholism and lack of morale/passive aggression in the workforce even after the campaign of secularization appeared to be successful.
Theocracies fall into the same trap as all authoritarian government - nobody likes to be controlled, yet despots always feel compelled to 'secure' their power by maintaining the tightest possible control over the people. A report on religious persecution in theocratic Iran is little different, in its mentions of crimes and rights violations, from this one on the abuses by Saddam's government, which was definitely tyrannical but seemed to give only lip service to Islam. Or from the accounts of mass imprisonment , somtimes execution, of adamant church members under Lenin and Stalin in the USSR.
If Mr. Zarqawi truly is fighting to establish another Islamic theocracy, he is fighting for a lost cause. Given enough time, and enough atrocities committed by authorities vying to dominate the minds of the populace, any people will wake up and see that no one can force anyone else into obedience to an unfelt belief system; the only alternative is government which stays its hand from interfering in any religious matter. That does not mean the elimination, limitation, or suppression of religion - as was attempted in the atheo-cractic Soviet Union - but the release of all faiths from under the heel of the regime, leaving them free to worship and proselytize to their hearts' content.
Mmm.. cornish game hens make good Thanksgiving dinner. I'm the anti-traditional one.. I really dislike turkey. It's so bland and dry-tasting. I always push for hens, ham, or steak on Turkey Day. Last year I lost out, so I'm glad there was concession this time. :)
Now I'm left wandering around the web bored, much as I did last night..
There was a multiple stabbing this week at the high school in the Indiana town where my brother goes (and parents went) to university.
The Iranians seem very attached to their dubious nuclear plants. Too bad. Free nations are so far following the correct path - aggressive diplomacy to bring to an end any nuclear programs which could provide starting materials to build weapons. If Iran should continue to thumb its nose... we may be embroiled in Iraq, but our B-2s aren't busy anymore.
Zarqawi vented about not getting enough props from Muslim clerics around the world. Of course, he's too rabidly xenophobic to think for a moment that the reason devout believers in his own purported religion are refusing to support him is because what he's doing is blatantly contrary to the true spirit of his own faith. I go out on a limb in that last phrase, because I have not extensively studied Islam, but I would like to believe that the opinion quietly circulating among Christian Americans that "Islam is a religion of hate" is plain and simple 9/11 backlash. Christian theocracies, after all, did similar things for several hundred years, to their own people and to Muslims. It would most definitely be accurate to say that "any state or group can easily fall into venomous hatred against a perceived enemy or detractor."
However, I don't know. Could it be that Islam is an inherently militant and politicized faith, because of history and teaching included in its sacred texts? Or have Islamic nations merely lagged behind the rest of the world in political development away from theocracy? It's clear mankind has been slowly moving away from direct control of civil affairs by church authorities, or by officials acting openly on behalf of only one faith. That's because, given full power to govern, any religious group will eventually succumb to the temptation to use that power to assimilate as much of the population as possible, and marginalize other groups whose teachings conflict with their own. This doesn't always start out in a violent way, but it always results in violence sooner or later, because when you try to force or coerce a person's thinking and beliefs, you are invading his private life, and he will react with hostility. This also applies to anti-religious governments such as the Soviet Union, which saw widespread civil war and rebellion during its first several decades of life, and continued national problems of alcoholism and lack of morale/passive aggression in the workforce even after the campaign of secularization appeared to be successful.
Theocracies fall into the same trap as all authoritarian government - nobody likes to be controlled, yet despots always feel compelled to 'secure' their power by maintaining the tightest possible control over the people. A report on religious persecution in theocratic Iran is little different, in its mentions of crimes and rights violations, from this one on the abuses by Saddam's government, which was definitely tyrannical but seemed to give only lip service to Islam. Or from the accounts of mass imprisonment , somtimes execution, of adamant church members under Lenin and Stalin in the USSR.
If Mr. Zarqawi truly is fighting to establish another Islamic theocracy, he is fighting for a lost cause. Given enough time, and enough atrocities committed by authorities vying to dominate the minds of the populace, any people will wake up and see that no one can force anyone else into obedience to an unfelt belief system; the only alternative is government which stays its hand from interfering in any religious matter. That does not mean the elimination, limitation, or suppression of religion - as was attempted in the atheo-cractic Soviet Union - but the release of all faiths from under the heel of the regime, leaving them free to worship and proselytize to their hearts' content.