"Something," Ilhan Omar, and Islamophobia

Why is the GOP hating women of color today?

Well, here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/pure-racist-act-ny-post-slammed-using-attack-rep-omar-over-speech-islamophobia/

 So several things here. People are mad because she didn't call 9/11 murder, she called it "something." And why she might have done that - the answer to this is absolutely illustrated in the Post's reaction and in people's reaction below. See the quote a few paragraphs down.

She may have said that because she was talking in that moment that was picked out and over-analyzed about the resulting Islamophobia and the blanket assumption after 9/11 that all Muslims and more widely all brown people are terrorists and dealt (and it remains) with everything from death threats and discrimination to actual physical harm.

So proving her point, the NY Post puts the signature picture of the burning towers and responds to the Congresswoman's words with all the power of its shoddy journalism on the front page with a giant headline, guaranteed to whip up the uninformed hatemongers into a frenzy. Aaand this happens...

Quote:

"Hundreds of people protested Omar outside the banquet, with chants that included “Burn the Koran,” “Ilhan Omar go to hell,” and “Shame on you terrorists.”

She used her speech to talk about Islamophobia, and she did not mince words about President Trump, saying she believed that he played a role in fueling “hate against Muslims.” "

So you see the Islamophobia she was referring to is alive and well.

When someone says 9/11 is murder, it puts the attention on the perpetrators, which was done after the tragedy to generate hate widely for brown people and Muslims and flag waving vengeance and a desire to kill in another ill-conceived invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter having nothing to do with it. Do we call those murders?? There were far more victims of 9/11 than those who died in the towers and she was differentiating between them.

Note that these people aren't criticizing her words, they are saying that she is a terrorist which was the very point she was making about the atmosphere after 9/11 where government policy and GOP/Bush fearmongering had dangerous effects then and continues to now through GOP/Trump.

You can question her phrasing, her tone, or her clothes - women deal with this EVERY SINGLE DAY with sexism and women of color more so than me through racism - but she is making a valid point that we need to pay attention to.

This is the NY Post's front page news:

And here you have another example of the NY Post's opportunistic bottom feeding exploitation of fear, racism, and stereotypes. Sub par journalism would be one thing. Inciting hatred is far worse.

Obama proves he is qualified; Romney flails

Let's get some statements, then sort out the timeline ;)

Romney:  "When our grounds are being attacked, and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course," he said, slamming the Obama administration for "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks."

Obama:  Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."  and here are his remarks that embody true leadership and strength rather than threats and accusations based on bungled facts.

Clinton:  “Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith, and as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace” and “a free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security.”

Politicians on social media...(monumentally bad idea):

Reince Priebus:   “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."

Allen West (R-FL, Tea Party):  Repeats weakness, apology, Jimmy Carter talking points, accuses media of protecting President when Romney should be cross examined because he made incorrect statements and is running for president, advocates bringing diplomats home, and unbelievably repeats the incorrect timeline of the Embassy condemnation of the video (confused with White House statement) as a response to the Libya attack.

Jim DeMint (R-SC):  “Governor Romney is absolutely right, there is no justification for these deadly attacks and we should never apologize for American freedom,”

Sarah Palin- Classic Palin: crude, factually incorrect and includes debunked Republican talking points. On Facebook...

Donald Rumsfeld:  The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out.

--------------------

On September 11 of this year, our ambassador to Libya died, along with 3 employees. The timeline generally starts at one showing of an anti-Islam movie which barely anyone attended and the trailer for it which, rather, may have been the thing that circulated widely. The film details are sketchy, the funding and producer's details are not known, but an Egyptian Christian ex-con could be involved and the Florida Quran burning pastor had much praise for it. When picked up by Arabic news, this inflamed tensions in the Middle East because wild rumor had it that it was supported by our government (as films must be there) and viewed widely in America, neither of which is true. 

It is widely thought to be an event that extremists used to their advantage and not necessarily the cause of the Cairo protest that turned angry and the tragic Libya embassy attack. It appears to be a well planned attack in the case of Libya. I'll be watching to see if the timing video is coincidence, if the ex-con suspected to be involved with the video was giving info to extremists, or if by chance both the video makers and the extremists wanted to use 9/11 to broadcast their hateful messages.

This is usually a time for putting politics aside and for expressing sympathy for victims' families together as Americans (or humans). Instead, Romney got his facts out of order and used that mistake to try and prop up the long debunked "apology tour" talking point to say Obama is not a leader and we need Romney to provide that leadership in Washington. Misguided is an understatement.

There are several things wrong, here. All pretty much lead one to conclude Romney shouldn't be anywhere close to an office that informs American foreign policy. He would be a disaster. GWB certainly made bad choices in foreign policy and advisers, but Romney is gunning for war and alienating allies well before we vote on who will make the best decisions in cases like these! 

1. He got the facts wrong.
*Obama did not apologize;
*the Twitter statement of tolerance was not an apology and came one guy from the embassy, not the White House;
*and the embassy statement was made BEFORE the attack to cool tensions ignited by an anti-Islam video.

2. He shamefully used the deaths of 4 Americans for political gain, along with Ryan and RNC chair Preibus.

3. It appears that he wasn't moved to make a statement condemning violence or expressing condolences or urging Americans to come together in crisis- his aides urged him to make a political statement separating him from Obama and dividing the nation.

4. Romney, Ryan also tried to tie in the "no leadership" talking point, and in the process proved Obama is the one you want in a crisis, without a doubt.

One of the tired Republican talking points seems to be that Obama lacks leadership, but ironically, this is the very thing in which Romney keeps displaying his profound lack of understanding and leadership. Just as McCain jumped the gun and made a spectacle of himself when the bottom dropped out of the economy (wanting to stop the campaign and debates to appear to be doing something), Romney with his gaffe ridden European tour, irresponsible Libya comments and criticism of Obama's careful diplomacy in favor of Romeny and Ryan's guns blazing, sabre rattling "American strength" does not inspire confidence the way a leader should in times of trouble. In fact, it goes beyond not inspiring confidence, though-  his way is bellicose and coarse, his approach is belligerent, undiplomatic and he is unqualified for the presidency.

Stamp hysteria

Oh no! Say it isn't so! See my response below.I have not edited the actual email much, only to make it more readable on my background. All punctuation, capitalization and fear-mongering has been preserved in its original form.

 ==========================================

Subject: Fwd: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !

                                    

                                              GOD BLESS YOU ALL

                          

Subject: FW: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!!

DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!!   REFUSE TO TAKE THEM ANYWHERE!   Don't let anyone sell them to you! Apparently they think That putting hearts and butterflies on the new Stamp will make most people not realize That the rest is Arabic and probably not Something we want to support.  New Stamp - the Second one!!! USPS New 44-Cent Stamp Celebrates A Muslim Holiday.  If There is only ONE thing you forward today.. Let It be this! President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM Holiday season with a new commemorative 44-Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp.  REMEMBER To adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, When you are purchasing your stamps at the post Office. All you have to say Is "No Thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my Letters or any of my mail!" To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors. REMEMBER The MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103! REMEMBER the MUSLIM Bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of The Military Barracks in Saudi Arabia! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of The American Embassies in Africa! REMEMBER the MUSLIM Bombing of the USS COLE! REMEMBER the MUSLIM Attack on 9/11/2001! REMEMBER all The AMERICAN lives that were lost in those Vicious MUSLIM Attacks! Pass This along to Every Patriotic American that You know and get the word Out!    Honor The United States of America.     =====================  My response: I have to say this first- I'm not mad at the forwarder at all-- just the creators of the forward and hysteria. I should probably leave this alone or delete it or whatever, but I won't.... I don't know if you looked at this before forwarding... but I have to chime in. I don't mean any offense, but knowing some Arabs and Muslims as I do, I have to say this stamp is nothing to worry about. Please forgive me if I seem a little peeved. I'll add my piece (since you've given me yours) and then I'll be fine. First, Obama didn't actually tell the post office to issue this stamp. This is another attempt at trying to get people to believe Obama's a "closet Muslim" and lying about being Christian. See snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp Second, it seems like a pretty crazy, big leap, don't you think? It's Arabic, so don't support it? I have a New Testament in Arabic. This is a pretty broad generalization- don't buy it 'cause of the Arabic. Things like this foster hatred of the unknown and "the other." It tries to tell you- you don't have anything in common with people who speak Arabic- don't bother to translate the script- let's judge them wholesale on their language (or color of their skin...didn't we get over that? No to that too, huh?)- and oppose and boycott whatever they "support". The tone of this thing is pretty vicious also. "Remember the Muslim bombings," with Muslim in all caps. And if you didn't get the message, the last line implores you to remember all the American lives lost in vicious Muslim attacks. The email doesn't mention that our good friend Israel had some very important knowledge about the Marine barracks incident, but didn't share it due to the nature of the give and take relationship- we give and they take. From the forward: "To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to  All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors."(??!!) MANY nationalities died on 9/11 (is that what they're talking about?), MANY members of MANY religious groups- they were all Americans (or maybe on visas, but you get my point). This line aims to divide Americans. This forward is a slap in the face to Americans. I'd rather boycott emails like this (but I think commenting might do more good- or at least I won't be silently complicit). Muslims serve in our armed forces and Muslims died on 9/11, alongside white, black, German, Swedish, Hispanic, Jewish, Italian, etc Americans. This makes it sound as if this stamp honors terrorists (?!)-- and Arab Americans or Muslim Americans either do not exist or cannot possibly function in a democracy or not be a terrorist in general. On a practical note, I seriously doubt you would be offered this stamp first or as the only option at a post office anyway. When you go to the counter and ask to buy stamps, they normally just hand out the flag or bell forever stamps- or whatever is on them. If you don't want the Eid stamp on your letters, we do have the option to pick something else. At my small local post office, we usually have 5 or 6 choices and online you have ~100. And in the little vending machines, I have only seen the bell and flag type. I seriously doubt post offices will force this particular stamp on you or require you to have it on your letters.  :)  My question is--will they use this stamp to "track" Muslims? I'm joking (I think). I take major issue with using this stamp being unpatriotic (and having all those American flags at the bottom of such a hateful message). That's ridiculous! We believe in freedom of religion, do we not? And God doesn't force Christians to obey; that is our choice (there are definitely consequences for the wrong choice... but my point is we aren't forced, we choose). This is a right as enshrined in law as our right to assemble and demonstrate, to speak our mind, to bear arms. Sure, don't buy the stamp if you don't want it, but to pressure (or harass) others not to buy it or the post office not to sell it because you don't celebrate the holiday represented on the stamp goes against what America is all about- or should be. Our soldiers died to protect THAT right. Where's the outrage about Hanukkah (or anything else that has appeared on a stamp that's not Christian)?? I'm sure there's a stamp for that and Christians don't celebrate that either. To be fair we should be making a scene at post offices about that, too. Otherwise, this is just about people thinking all Muslims are terrorists. I don't think that is too big of a leap. I thought we were beyond ignorance like that! Moving on to more facts... This stamp is for the celebration or Ramadan or the Eid feast, not anything remotely associated with terrorism or any particular country. It is not unpatriotic. Ramadan emphasizes some points Christians and Americans would do well to consider, actually- what it means to be hungry, fasting, prayer, devotion, being kind, not arguing, refraining from foul speech, etc. Is this really something to get upset about or make a scene about (going in and shouting, unprovoked- "I do not want that Muslim stamp on any of my mail")? I guess you certainly have that right, but especially if you are a Christian, you should think about your motivation for doing that, how you might accomplish the same in a more self-controlled, respectful manner, and what others are going to learn from that- a Biblical concept or something opposite. If you take issue with this as a Christian, I can maybe see that. Maybe. It's a Muslim holiday. Christians don't celebrate it. But- no need to hate it and hate Arabic and stage boycotts and and go into post offices demanding stamps with some "American" writing on it. The solution would be simply not to buy it, not to "adamantly and vocally boycott" and make a big deal about it. It's not applicable to you. Must everything be? Like the Hanukkah one. So what? We have the freedom not to buy it. Choose the flowers. Or flag. Or Elvis. Chinese New Year*. Latin Music Legends. Whatever floats your boat. *Do be advised that the Chinese New Year one does have Chinese characters on it ;) It's pretty American to have over 100 choices of what to mail your letters with. It's a letter for crying out loud! If there was only one design, I'd definitely think we were moving towards socialism. ;) Edits: -->I was so caught off guard by this one for whatever reason, I didn't mention that whether they're talking about 9/11 or Iraq (Americans dying), my points are basically the same except for the fact that I don't believe soldiers in Iraq are fighting for freedom or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This may be clear to most, but this particular post may not have been clear. -->I also didn't mention the differences between Islam and what terrorists practice (those who claim to kill in the name of Islam). For the most part, terrorism is political. People have a problem with foreign occupation and oppression (go figure). I think it helps them (justification, recruiting) to bring religion into it, but I certainly wouldn't inform myself on Islam from watching or listening to a terrorist who claims to kill in the name of God (in any religion). ** I didn't go into these probably because the main problem was more broad. It's definitely not that I think these issues aren't important. When I looked back at this, I felt I should have addressed them, though.

Islam in the church...and consumerism, too, I guess

Islam is sometimes mentioned in worship and Bible classes. I'm probably going to seem overly critical, but I'm just trying to sort out what's right- how should I react, what does the Bible say, should I go along with the majority? It's more of an inward criticism or conflict. Or maybe I am hypersensitive on this or maybe it's just one of those things that for me provokes thought endlessly given the political atmosphere and times. There was a lighthearted joke- not a big deal- but it made me think about the way we talk about other religions, etc. It also made me think of some less lighthearted things about Islam I've heard from people I would otherwise consider strong in the faith, as this situation always does.

I also found the strong agreement when radical Islam and suicide bombing was mentioned interesting. That made me think about buzzwords and hot topics that are often mentioned when politics and religion cross over now and then. When certain things are mentioned like abortion, gay marriage, the way culture is going down the tubes because a certain party in in the White House, and I think we can add radical Islam to the list (which is weird since it has very little to do with Islam and nothing to do with Christians), it can really animate and light a fire under a congregation. I use the conservative example here, because this is what situation I am in, but it is the same for the other side as well, I'm sure- same reaction to different buzzwords.

I mean why look at Islam so closely? Aside from the political focus, because I guess that's the real reason. Why poke fun at their beliefs- or things we think are beliefs but are really myths? I see it done with denominations occasionally, but we normally catch ourselves and say we shouldn't be doing that. Not so with Islam. It can be sort of a of a free for all. Maybe it's because when we're poking fun at denominations, we get uncomfortable when we think of a good friend who is involved with one of these groups; whereas many of us don't have this handy check and balance for Islam (I'm just guessing here).

Instead of the jokes, though, I wonder why we don't approach Islam (not just personally, but teach it), or more specifically, radical Islam (since I think this is the focus of the concern), a little more like Paul or Stephen. They both just kept on preaching the truth (wisely- in their case they had the Spirit to lead them to various cities- in our case, we have the Bible that tells us not to provoke, to be be kind, live as we are called) and Stephen even pleaded for their souls as they stoned him to death. I don't recall them spreading rumors about or laughing at their detractors as part of their teaching. They were in more immediate danger than we are from "radical Islam" and yet they were far more sensible about the whole thing (I guess that makes sense, now, doesn't it?). I don't think that they weren't afraid- not at all- but they certainly handled it well and we can and should learn volumes from that. They may have made certain arrangements in their meetings for safety, but I can't really see the superior attitude in the New Testament that I hear sometimes today.

They seemed to have a good understanding of this verse we seem to often forget:

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And also:

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

I have been seeing this focus on Islam in/by the church since the Iraq invasion or since 9/11/2001. There have been lessons, even lectureships, and of course many a post on a message board (breeding ground for sensational email forwards). Why? Maybe this is becoming one of those issues like abortion and gay marriage for which you must preach zero tolerance and draconian measures in order to be a true Republican and in some cases a true Christian? Is it a reflection of the Republican Party's obsession (see post on Muslim Hearings)?

I wonder why we have to be so concerned? It's not really such a safety issue. Yes, there are those who don't like our policies and want to kill for that. True. But nothing like Rome and Christianity back in the day- not by any means.

I do understand that we are to do this:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

On the other hand, there are other issues (I believe) that we should be thinking more closely about than Islam or the smaller minority of radicals. Consumerism. Why do we "need" so much stuff? I'm talking about myself as much as anyone. Having been to the 3rd world, made that vow to do with less, violated said vow so quickly and easily upon return, I  reflect on it some. I think we could do with a lot less, but then in a world of excess, you'd look like you were unnecessarily depriving yourself or worse, your kids. It seems much more in style to decry Islam, abortion, or gay marriage than declaring a war on stuff. I don't think it's a sin to want that Kindle or iPad or splurge on shoes, but at some point you do cross that line. Where is the line? And I think a lot of times that line is closer than we are assuming and saying it is. We are quick to say rich people can and do enter heaven when the verses about the rich young ruler or the camel and the eye of the needle come up. Maybe for good reason. Though it might be hard, it is possible. The problem with it is that I don't hear as much in these types of discussions is how little can we do with? What can I do without? I have too much. I'm talking about myself, here, too, no question. I wonder if we should talk more about giving and buying and having less than clarifying various parables that say it's hard to get to heaven if you're rich?

Wow. This kind of ended up in a different place than I expected. And so ends another post I was going to delete, but will go ahead and post. If I deleted as many posts as I wanted to, I'd only have a handful up here! :)

Juan Williams firing

NPR: The Diane Rehm Show
Juan Williams
October 26
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-26/juan-williams?page=7


First, THE comments:

Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737



I have a few different things I'm thinking. Two that differ quite a bit and one that is not too important.

I'll start with the superficial one. Muslim garb. Tee hee. That makes me want to giggle. Maybe not so superficial when you consider stereotypes and how they play into prejudice...

With that out of the way, lets move onto a few things that stick out to me.

Ok. I'm going to start with a defense of sorts, then move to the other direction, hoping that all these things that popped into my head can make some sort of sense.

One might say he's brave for stating that he's afraid of people dressed in traditional dress. It's not really PC to judge a book by its cover, but really he can't be wrong necessarily for stating his opinion. That's how he feels. He either wasn't thinking or bravely opened himself up to criticism.

In the clip that was played, he did say that this opinion doesn't justify profiling or denying mosque building. It appears as he says- he was trying to reign in O'Reilly. Now, reigning that guy in at all means you're probably still in the abyss, but slightly less so, but he makes a point.

Having said all that, I don't think he should have stated his fear on the air. On The Diane Rehm Show, she tries to get him to examine his roles as journalist for NPR and commentator for Fox and he kind of talks around it. I think he was in a precarious situation balancing those two roles and failed.

Another reason he shouldn't have gone there, even with the disclaimer that his fear doesn't justify discrimination, is that people DO use this fear as the basis for discrimination, especially lately. The Park 51 mosque thing and Quran burning and the infamous survey was educational in this regard. I also learned what some people I know thought about Muslims that I wish I didn't.

I mean, just think. When or if you hear that a white person is afraid of black people, what do we think? It isn't PC. We might not think a lot of them. We might think they need to be educated and talk to black people so that they can see that people are people and there are common threads among us all. I have this same reaction as I do to people afraid of black people as I do people afraid of Muslims or "Muslim garb." ( Jeans and scarves--ooooh. Scary. :( )

This fear of black people has been used to discriminate and that's not ok. Same for Muslims. Unfortunately, it seems it will take us a bit longer to figure that out. It seems people are more accepting of judging Muslims by the small percentage of extremists who use religion to recruit to fulfill their political ambitions than to judge all black people or all Jews by whatever stereotype comes to mind.

His comments in the times we live in now are inflammatory and are just going to feed the fear and give it more of a voice and higher profile. The comments about not using the fear for discrimination are irrelevant in the present time given how the majority of Americans feel (and know) about Muslims. See the polls below.

I guess it's not really the fear of the group that's really wrong. I mean, that's your feeling. What you do with that fear and your feelings is the really important thing. Do you ask questions and find out about this group? Do you talk to them despite your fear to find out what is prejudice and what is real? Or do you retreat and believe all of the junk email forwards, Fox News commentators and movie stereotypes and freely spew them forth as though you are an expert on the topic?


***Links to the polls I mention or reasons why I think Americans think it's PC to hate Muslims:

Poll: Americans think "Muslim" means someone they dislike
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll

Poll shows more Americans think Obama is a Muslim
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806913.html

TIME Poll: Majority Oppose Mosque, Many Distrust Muslims

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

Religious Intolerance

The Park 51, or more famously, 'Ground Zero Mosque' has brought to light American Christian- Muslim relations. I really thought things should be better, not worse than just after 9/11. Obama's election brought the first hints, but recent events really sealed it.


Religious Intolerance in the US
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us/transcript

Today's show (Sept 16, 2010), is supposed to have religious leaders talking about Islam in America. I want to check that out as well.

Some interesting points were made about what people said and believed about Catholicism around the time of JFK's election.

From Norman Vincent Peale about Kennedy:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic, our culture is at stake."

"It is inconceivable that a Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interest, and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America."

People say the same about Muslims today, but in less polite language and in more sweeping and dramatic tones. The end of free speech is pretty dramatic, though. I'll give him that.

Also on the Diane Rehm Show they talked about Catholics being prevented from holding office. I have read elsewhere about colonial times and various denominations would discriminate against the other in this way. On the show, they talked about in Nebraska in the '20s they shut down Lutheran schools because they read the Bible in German and apparently in Philidelphia there was a fight about which part of the Bible you read.

***

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/26/colleague_of_nyc_taxi_driver_stabbed

When I initially heard about this, I was horrified that it was 9/11 or Park 51 backlash. Then I thought, this sounds a bit like post traumatic stress. It did say he was embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, but he was a film student, not a soldier. Not that he can't get PTSD. Some details don't really fit with PTSD as far as I know.

He's got to "bring Abdallah through the checkpoint." That sounds like PTSD. "Consider this a checkpoint" sounds like he knows what he's doing, though, not like he thinks he's in Afghanistan. And afterwards, he claimed he was trying to rob the taxi driver, so that doesn't sound like PTSD. I'm no expert, though. I'm definitely not saying he shouldn't have to pay for seriously wounding the taxi driver either way. He definitely should serve time and get help if needed. I just half wonder if there isn't a PTSD issue or if you could tell if he was faking it.

***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pastor-terry-jones-calls-off-koran-burning-ground-zero-mosque/story?id=11594495

Guy wants to burn Qurans. Guy links it to the Park 51 mosque. Is this terrorism? Hate speech? Is it yelling fire in a crowded theater? Protected speech? Is it right or wise or obligatory for a Christian to do?

This verse was mentioned in support of burning Qurans:

"Act 19:18-20 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed."

My answer:

I don't think this is an example that we should burn every writing that is against God. That's going beyond what is written. An equivalent situation in my mind was if we had a mission in this country or another and converted a whole slew of Muslims to Christianity and they decided they would bring their Qurans, which represents something they once believe true but they now know is false, and burn them. That would have significance to them and perhaps signal to others that they have made a change. Maybe it would give them confidence. Who knows. My point is that the "pastor" in our current situation is in a very different position than the Acts 19 situation. He's burning something he never believed in to make some political point or provoke others or make money for his Dove Institution.

While burning books is certainly legal, I'm not a fan of that type of protest (burning books and flags) for myself. I personally know I could say more on a sign (I have). I seriously doubt his intentions. I don't think it helps the cause of Christ unless former Muslims do this without prompting as something they feel they need/want to do. All this aside from what Obama and Patraeus have said about the potential to harm troops. People have urged the press to censor itself about all types of news in order to not harm the troops or don't criticize the war or Bush or whoever because it will embolden terrorists. Why can't the "pastor" do this as well?

I mentioned reaching out to Muslims and teaching them, but the "pastor" also needs the truth. That's through what lens I want to look at things. Politics and human behavior are endlessly interesting, but we need to be about the business of teaching.

---
Another one I posted elsewhere:

The Quran burning stunt was pretty much either political or due to his problem with Muslims/Arabs.

Scheduling it for 9/11 says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political.

If it was false teaching he was worried about, he'd be burning the Book of Mormon, writings of John Calvin, other false Christian books and teachings. He'd be burning porn, books and movies that glorify breaking the law and homosexuality including mafia flicks, vampire stuff and such. There is a lot to burn if that were his purpose, but he chose the Quran to single out. Hmmm. I mean, most Christians know and speak it loudly that the Quran is false teaching. Seems like if you want to make a real statement instead of just make Muslims afraid and mad, you'd burn something that Christians accept, but that can cause our ruin. Lottery tickets. Money. iphones. Whatever. A popular one has been books that contain cuss words or sex scenes that kids are required to read in school. Make your congregation wear plain clothes or uniforms to make a point about materialism. There is a ton you could do if you wanted without provoking people and "making a point" that people already know well.

On Friday or Saturday it was said said he called it off and it was linked to Park 51 changing it's location.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/pastor-terry-jones-quran-burning

I don't know whether this was an afterthought for Mr. Jones or if this was the original purpose; I found out about it late in the controversy. And we're back. The Great Mosque Debate. He thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political. It's not just about calling attention to false teaching. Burning is an act that could go terribly wrong. It seems less in line with the Christian teachings of preaching the gospel to all the world and living peaceably with all men as much as depends on us.

---
Living with Muslims would be refreshing, especially in America. Why can we not appreciate that? They share our value of modesty. More so. They don't drink. There are more Christians who do. Homosexuality and premarital sex would be looked down upon as in the days our parents and grandparents remember fondly. They fast for a whole month and Christians are supposed to fast. The fast helps them think about the less fortunate and they are supposed to give to the poor as well during this time. This is familiar Christian territory as well. Their culture and religion values hospitality highly and they practice it often and enthusiastically. This is something Christians, and Americans for sure, can be lacking. Instead of our hospitality, we're known for being loud mouthed and culturally tone deaf. Christians and Muslims share close to the same belief in women being equal before God yet having different roles than men in worship. Culture in America has largely gotten rid of the value placed on men taking care of women and cherishing them, but this is alive and well in the Arab world.

I'm just saying that they have more in common with us than we Christians are willing to admit. People who have less in common, some denominations, pro- choice people, people into "sexual freedom", people who get drunk every weekend, people caught up in various sins in our community we make peace with (they're Americans, we have to work with them, hate the sin not the sinner, etc) and live with and may even be friends with- we don't go around burning things and provoking them and making fun of them or demanding that it is incumbent on them to make it clear that they mean us no harm and won't indoctrinate our kids, and if they don't it's ok for us to assume this and other horrible things about them.

Christians tend to be pretty hostile to Muslims and that bothers me. I'm not saying we should bend Biblical doctrine or convert to Islam. Absolutely not. But the hostility I just don't understand. Especially if you haven't asked them what they believe and what their opinions on things are. And even then why not disagree and leave it at that like you would your coworker who is of a different Christian denomination or different political party with whom you completely disagree?

Christian/Western Perceptions of Islam- No Change

I recently revisited a Christian website. Not a random one, one that has good scriptural stuff in general. I'm not going to name it; I don't want to bash it or anything. I just think we should think about this. The Media section is just out of control. It is supposed to be a place to discuss Christian topics and perspectives on things in the media, I think. Often, what gets posted is simply a link that portrays our government or someone of another faith mistreating Christians or denying them rights. Not always, but frequently, the target is Islam and Muslims.

When you post a link about honor killing or a Muslim cutting off a Christian's hand, etc with no explanation, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Are you alerting Christians to a danger you think is real and imminent? Are you trying to make Christians feel better by putting down others? Are you trying to inspire Christians to overcome adversity- real or perceived? I just can't see what is trying to be accomplished by these ostensibly well-meaning individuals. Why people insist on "proving" the majority of Muslims are violent or that those truly following Islam are the terrorists or that Islam is not a religion of peace or Allah is different than God- instead of comparing and contrasting Islam with the Bible is beyond me.

Right off the bat before looking at the link and such in a detailed way, I always think about Matthew 10:28:

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

So, someone hates us or wants to kill Christians? What of it? Should we not just live as we are called- not antagonistic, but not silent, either?

Then there are the facts. Those pesky facts. Some people have little use for them, but I want to know what's going on.

We see a very small percentage of Muslims committing terrorist acts in the news and in movies. This is where most of us form our opinions of Muslims and it is not representative of the majority of Muslims out there. I know many will take issue with that statement, but then that is essentially the reason for the post. :)

Some may call me a Muslim 'apologist' and wonder why I care about Muslims rather than the Christians being tortured for their faith around the world by authoritarian regimes. The answer is simple. We have no wrong idea about these Christians, as we do with Muslims. We know it's going on. It's wrong. It should stop, yes, but Christians understand the greater battle is the heart, the spiritual, so if they are faithful, the battle is won regardless of whether they are free to practice or in prison for it. The Christian perception of Muslims may not matter to some, but I find the subject generally approached in a mainly unChristian manner. It bothers me. It's inconsistent and wrong and puts up walls where there need not be, which should matter if you want as many people to go to heaven as possible. That's my thinking, anyway.

Another note- In reading some of these links written by Muslims, they do have some misconceptions about Christianity, at least Christianity as I know and practice it. Granted, they may be getting their info from Calvinists or Catholics neither of whose doctrines I subscribe to, but I still think it is important for us to change the prevailing attitude, ask questions or at least refrain from the sweeping negative generalizations about them regardless of what's said of us.

Now on to the links. This turned out to be more than I thought it was going to be...


***
Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam, by Paul Findley is a good book. The title is pretty self-explanatory...
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/october01/0110106.html

Edward Said wrote Covering Islam. I think I have it, but I either haven't read it or can't remember it. That's why I've been making a few notes when I've read something in the past months. The book I remember reading by him was packed with excellent facts and research, but was a little hard to get through despite my interest.

http://www.amazon.com/Covering-Islam-Media-Experts-Determine/dp/0679758909

***********************************************
Here is a PBS piece looking at some myths we cling to about Islam:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/types/index.html

***********************************************

The general public and many academics have several preconceived notions about Islamic Law. One such notion is that Islamic judges are bound by ancient and outdated rules of fixed punishments for all crimes. This paper explores that idea and looks at other myths in an attempt to present Islamic Law from a non-biased view of Shar'iah Law.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

***********************************************
Here are a few things often attributed to or blamed on Islam that are actually due to other influences:

Honor killing:

However, many in the West also misunderstand and conveniently condemn honor killing as a practice of Islam. The mistake with this condemnation is that Islam does not permit or condone honor killing. However, it is precisely this misunderstanding and ignorance that allows many in the West to participate in a climate of hate, mistrust and even the idea of war against all of Islam.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/intentchopra/2010/02/a-practical-approach-to-talkin.html

Guardianship:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabria-jawhar/saudi-tribal-customs-not_b_269867.html

***********************************************
How did the stereotypes come to be?


This site talks about Arabs in the media, but is pretty extensive, so it goes into Islam as well.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/Arabs.html

***********************************************
Also a good site about how (which ways) Islam did or didn't influence Arab societies and how that it perceived in the West.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/media.htm

***********************************************

Bird in his book, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate, talks about the political vacuum in Egypt being filled by militants. He also talks about Saudi Arabia and how that society was influenced by Wahabiism. He explains how the US supported the royals and dictators to keep oil revenue (democratic systems would probably nationalize the oil which would be bad for us) as opposed to supporting those who desired some form of democracy. These royals and dictators allied with hard line religious leaders in order to keep control and avoid democracies that would send them packing, with US blessings in many cases.

I read book recently, I believe it was Bird's (not sure, though), that explained Sharia'a law better than any other American. Generally, it is associated with dictatorial regimes slicing off heads and hands of dissidents. In reality, it is quite a bit different. He explains how a man killed another man in a car accident. They guy would have probably gone to jail in our society and both parties would live with guilt, anger and loss. Under Sharia'a law, however, an agreement was made that since the guy killed was supporting his parents and I think a sibling, that the offender was required to provide for this family. In our society, it would be acceptable to hate the guy who killed that son. There, the family of the guy who was killed, for their part, considered him in as a son.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/26/bird.arab.modernity/index.html

***********************************************

Some think Islam is the problem and view states in predominantly Muslim areas as failed states. Mostly, though, they are pointing to leaders that claim to be following Islam, but aren't applying it properly or the people or rulers are calling tribal traditions Islamic.

The air is thick with theories which claim that Islam has been paralyzed by a deadening obscurantism since the twelfth century, and this paralysis will only end when Muslims decide to replace Islam with secular humanism. It is time these theories were deconstructed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid3.html

***********************************************

Here's a site talking about democracy being an Islamic value.

So, all else equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them promote these values. ...

Several considerations suggest that democracy—and especially a constitutional democracy that protects basic individual rights—is that form.

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html

***********************************************
Here's a site talking about feminism and Islam. It is rather interesting that many Muslim women's values actually line up with Christian women's, despite our efforts to villify them for their lack of freedom.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/feminism.html

Jehan Sedat had a good discussion of feminism and Islam in her book, My Hope For Peace.

On a funny and almost unrelated note, I read Jehan Sadat's book, which of course held Anwar Sadat up as the best Arab leader in history, right before reading Kai Bird's Mandelbaum Gate. Apparently, Bird is a big Nasser fan. That was interesting.

Back to Islamic feminism...two NPR pieces, probably inspired by France's move to try and ban the veil:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126309699

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-13/banning-veil