Grass is Greener on the Other Side

I find it interesting that Olmert thinks that a two-state solution is the only option for Israel in order to continue to exist as a civilized sovereign nation. It seems to me that if a two-state solution is reached, too many Palestinians who wish to eliminate Israel all together. As much as the two-state idea sounds like an ideal one, it would be allowing too much growth and power from the Palestinians who as I have discussed already also want more than what they are given. Especially with Iran on their back, a country that hopes to have Israel wiped off the map in the near future. One can only imagine that if the Arab nations had the chance to suffocate Israel they would jump at the opportunity. I'm not saying that Israel should take things into their own hands and eliminate the Palestinians, but I do not know if splitting the land 50/50 is really in Israel's best interest. The Jews have no where else to call home, where as the Palestinians have no real ties except that they were there first, and if we went by who had which land first, the Native Americans would be the ones regulating American casinos on reservations. There is no easy solution, nor is there one that will please all parties involved, but considering what Israel has had to go through to get to where they are today, I think it should be on the Arabic nations surrounding Israel to take in the refugees when they were the ones who attacked Israel to begin with.

Two-sided solution

Would you like a side of fries with that land?

So maybe this isn't exactly how it is going, but the Middle East Crisis does follow a similar pattern. It usually does not go as peaceful as this and the smile on the Palestinian's face probably does not come this easy, but in the end it is the Israelis who are losing out on what is rightfully theirs. Asides from the fact that the many Arab nations surrounding Israel already dislike Jews and see them as public enemy number 1, they feel like the land east of the Mediterranean should belong to the Palestinians. Last I checked war is the ultimate decider of who maintains or receives land, and I do not believe Israel has lost any wars since their birth, yet they are threatened constantly to give back the land. And for some reason or other (I mean, it's for peace, but we have seen how that turns out), Israel tends to always give back land that it rightfully won, and then some. Not surprisingly, every time they do give back a piece, the Palestinians want a little more, and then some more, and even more. At a certain point Israel needs to just put its foot down and stop giving in to terrorist threats. I am fine with a peace agreement, but it has to be concrete, not something that Hamas will eventually decide isn't enough and bomb some random shopping mall. Clearly someone needs to back down, and after fighting several wars against several nations, I think Israel has earned the right to stay put.

Waffle House

Funny little cartoon, I like it more that it does not focus on his religion, but on the real problem with his candidacy, constant flip -flopping. In an election where minorities are the majority of candidates, and where the microscope has never been so deliberate on the attributes of those running, I think it is really important to keep the attention on the type of politician a man, or woman is, rather than the type of beliefs or physical characteristics of the person. In the beginning, after reading the series of Mitt Romney from the class website, I actually grew quite fond of him. He does not share all the same political beliefs that I do, but I liked his business acumen and his determination to overcome tough odds, such as the 2002 Winter Olympic games, and running for Governor of Massachusetts, a state dominated by Liberal ideology. Then came the stories of his reluctance to answer questions about his religion, which even though I discourage the idea of that serving any importance, I do not belief he should run from the critics, as well as his inability to stick with one side. I understand he has a struggle right now to maintain votes and he wants to please as many people as possible before the primaries, but I do not think that changing your mind whenever someone new asks you a question is any better than sticking with one choice regardless of who agrees. At least the media was able to take some of the pressure off Mitt in regards to his religion, but Mitt is on his own with this latest obstacle.

GOP debate

A third party candidate from the Christian Right if Rudy Guiliani wins the primaries, seems like a rational way to solve a problem, if you cant beat 'em, get someone else who might be able to. If a scenario like this were to play out during the elections, the Christian Right will get their way and Guiliani would lose, but ultimately, they would lose as well as a Democrat would undoubtedly take the Oval Office. Now, I don't know exactly what goes through their heads when they make rash decisions like this, but it seems to me more beneficial to take your losses and still try and back Rudy as opposed to having Clinton or Obama, which would disgust the Religious Right with every move they would make. I can't blame them for trying to put pressure on the Republican Party to find another candidate that better suits their needs..err, wants, but at a certain point acceptance that the government does not work like Burger King, and you can't always have everything your way. Sadly though, these people hold so much power and backing, that these threats could potentially made a difference, but hopefully rationality will prevail and if Guiliani makes it to the national polls, he won't be blindsided by a futile candidacy from a third party Southern Baptist.

Christopher Hitchens attacks Falwell...

...and for good reason.



Jerry Falwell, and people just like him seemed to be a big portion of this class, and similar to Lobdell's view, or at least what I have been able to take out from his lectures on how he feels about these kind of people, Christopher Hitchens also despises the man and everything he stands for. I do not blame him either, and every point he makes is right on target with the truth. Although I have to give Falwell props for attracting so many innocent victims to his cause, I do think that ultimately followings like the one he created, along with those of the Crouch's and Robertson and so on have a negative effect on politics and on the publics' lives. They used the media to manipulate the public through the use of religion which ultimately had an enormous effect on politics. Prime examples of why we have a class like this, to learn from what these blood-suckers did and ensure it does not happen to our generation.

Iran v. Ahmadinejag

And the news story

I had no idea something like this was going on, and I couldn't be happier to know the people of Iran have taken the time to create something so meaningful and provocative in a place lead by a man full of hatred and denial towards the Jewish people. Being Jewish myself and knowing about how Ahmadinejad feels towards my people, it is refreshing to know that something is being down to ensure that a stereotype isn't created throughout Iranian society. I have not had a chance to watch any, but I got Part 1 of the series from youtube in case anyone wanted to take a look. Hopefully, the nut-case President of Iran won't take any offensive actions against this, as he adamantly denies that the Holocaust was real, but was merely a myth created by the Western powers to justify giving Israel its land. The other interesting idea brought up in this article was the distinction made between Jews and Zionists. I myself do not personally like the people that consider themselves to the Orthodox Jews, but I do believe that the Jews should have a home, and whether or not it is Biblically written, or if it is Gods given land to the Israelites, the fact of the matter is Israel has face roughly 6 wars since their birth in 1948 and have given back enough land to expand its size 6 fold after each victory to ensure peace, and has gotten no respect in return from the surrounding Arabic nations.

Iran v. The World

Iran won't budge


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted out on Wednesday that the United States efforts to calm the Middle East Crisis are futile, and that Israel will collapse in the near future. His main issue is with the Zionist perspective that they are entitled to Israel, when Ahmadinejad believes that the only reason they are in the position they are because of lies, corruption and violence. Nice. I hope no one takes this man seriously. A man who chooses his words wisely, yet does not understand how ridiculously hypocritical he sounds. First off, when it comes to violence, he is among the leaders in the world, when it comes to lies, there aren't many better at it, and when it comes to corruption, well his government is not the most respected and fair in the world. Secondly, who is this man to tell the world that peace will never come, that attempts to solve issues are in vain, and that lives need to be lost in order for a solution to arise. Even countries that typically side with Iran aren't please with the President's crude comments in favor of Israel being "wiped off" the map. It is sad that people like this exist in this world, and even more appalling that such a man could have such a powerful position for such a long time. Oh well, as long as he continues with threats and does not try to be the hero of the mislead Arab people, we should all be fine.

Truthful Lie

Iraqi Reporter's questionable claim

An instance perhaps when the media tries to get back to the government that has treated them wrongly for so many years. This reporter claimed that 11 of his family members were slaughtered at the dinner table and Iraqi police did not intervene in the killings. The big issue is when his mom contacted another group of reporters and said that the family is fine and she is ashamed that her son would make such radical and false claims. The bodies have not been identified, and no one but the victimized reporter has verified the accusation. Now, we all know the regime in Iraq has been less than perfect, but I think this might be a time where we have to take the side of the big bad politicians and hope that something horrendous actions like this were merely false stories told by a crazy man with nothing to lose and everything to gain. But, he does live in one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in Baghdad so I guess anything is possible.

The Big Picture

Disarray

This article makes the recent decline in religious politics seem like a damper on future elections, seems to deflate any hopes of Republican success in the next generation of politics; but maybe it's for the better in the long run. Instead of Republican candidates using God to try and persuade voters, they will stick strictly to the issues at hand and not bring in some intangible, external being into the mix. True, the Democrats might have the advantage in the upcoming election, but look at the mess George Bush got into by justifying his actions through the Bible. Halfway through the article the reporter cites a few young adults who feel embarrassed to have any association with their church because of the bad name politics have created for them. Leaving politics out of religion is the smartest move for church leaders who are finally beginning to catch on. Church is a place of worship, and everything else should be left at home; same goes for politics, someone can use their beliefs to shape their own opinions but they should not be imposed on those who not only do not follow the faith, but may not have any faith at all. This article tends to take an understanding, yet confused tone on the split between evangelicals in this election, and as long as they continue to not harbor any harsh criticism towards the division of religion and politics, the public might catch on as well. I understand it will never be possible to completely abandon one's religious faith when discusses the many political issues that may stem from religion, but making decisions that effect an entire nation should be done under different pretenses than words from a book that not everyone believes in.

Interesting

I'm not as educated as I thought, cause this design does not make complete sense to me. I am a little lost on the Dark Ages and Fundamentalism sections but it humors me nonetheless. This was found from a forum on the biology of aging, something to do with God's plan for everyone. But this is something that would get a lot of attention if the media for some reason or another decided to air this but it would most likely spark intelligent conversation on the subject, so not all would be lost...

Religion, a cause or a scapegoat

Now that religion is so deeply embedded into our culture, is it possible to ever go back to the days before religion. I mean, they did exist, so it isn't too unrealistic to think we can survive without it, but would it be de-volving ourselves to a less organized place in time or would it better us by not creating so much turmoil and conflict? Although I do not question the amazing things religion has brought to this world; passion, love, devotion and a sense of belonging to something greater, I do believe that tangibly, it has cost the world a much higher price. Conflict can be traced back long before Christianity came into the picture, but just since then there has been more death attributed to religion than any other cause (now I do not have evidence to back that up, but I do not think anyone could argue a more persistent killer of the innocent.) It is a shame to see that something that was brought to this world to help solve problems and bring people together, has been able to cause such hate and destruction on a global level.

Now, this forum tends to disprove my point a bit, but the arguments are somewhat intriguing, if you are bored take a look, maybe add your opinion

War, why?

Another Brick in the Wall

Stones and Insults

You have to give the man props where props are due; he is a brave soul to put himself in such a gut-wrenchingly difficult position. To choose between loyalties to the ones who spill their hearts and soul, and the ones who wish to protect the innocent from being hurt.

“Imams like Mr. Shata — men who embrace American freedom and condemn the radicals they feel have tainted their faith — rarely make the news.”

The power of the media…America stands by what the media chooses to cover, and big hearts typically lose out to empty threats and police chases. What would you do in a situation so dyer? Would you confront the speculation about your religion in an attempt to appease the same people that will most likely stab you in the back if they feel necessary, or would you keep to yourself knowing you are not causing any harm but not break the stereotypes that society has placed on you?

On a side note, while reading the article I noticed the image they had on side of the article, one of a Muslim young adult smoking Hookah, with the caption reading, “Fadi Alkhatiba, 23, like other young Muslims, has embraced his Islamic identity more fully since 9/11.” Well, thank you for the enlightenment on true Islamic culture…

The Wall of insults is another example of what biased stereotypes can produce, rather than breaking down the barriers between us, we strengthen the wall that separates us, leaving less hope for a brighter future.

Mormons to the Rescue

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=143

…A little insight into the Mormon faith, for two high ranking Elders who work with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

This could possibly answer some questions you may have had about Mormonism, but it comes down to how trustful you are when you know people are put in a situation where only one answer can really fit.

For me, though I respect their willingness to come out and be put in the hot seat to answer some political questions, I think it might take a little more than an interview with the Pew Forum to really curb the negative perception the public has on Mormonism.

I am satisfied though with the thoroughness of their answers, and they don’t seem to beat around the bush too much. They state their opinion, give a religious explanation and defend themselves pre-maturely against counter-arguments they know they will face. After reading the interview though, I can not say their justification for their political views is any different then those of another other denomination or faith, just like any other religion, God is the reasoning behind nearly every answer and whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant when I take into consideration that a majority of people got their political points of view from a similar place. Interesting though that those same people are the ones that would have the biggest problem with placing a Mormon in the Oval Office.

Convenient Truth?

Some pretty basic information on American’s attitude towards two of the most heavily criticized and negatively approached religions in America. I did find it surprising that the perception of Islam has gotten worse since 2005, I figured that the years after 9/11 would increase tensions, but as the time past, wounds would heal and the heat would die down as people learned more, but I guess not. As for Mormonism, I do not think they allow themselves to be analyzed enough for anyone to gain a proper understanding of their views on religion. Ignorance is what brings about hatred and fear, so it seems counter productive to the Mormons cause if they do not allow us to divulge into their world, unless of course they would prefer we stay away and keep our opinions to ourselves.

The media plays a huge role in this though because it is through the mass media that a large proportion of citizens get their news and information from, and when the media chooses either not to focus on a certain religion, or never shed positive light on their beliefs, it causes a biased view among the people. Although the public should share some of the blame for not taking the time to educate themselves, in the modern, lazy world we live in, it is understandable why we shift our opinions on important issues based on the words of the reporters. It is to no surprise though that the largest demographic to have a negative view on Islam and Mormonism are the conservative right, typically the most devout Christians. So maybe instead of the media being put to blame, the focus should shift to the leaders of the Christian organizations, the ones who hold the most power and whose opinions are heard and respected throughout the congregations.

But when it comes down to it, I think that thinking for ourselves might be a better idea, assuming we take the time to learn and hear different perspectives it shouldn’t be such a terrible chore for us to take on, who knows, maybe we will end up making some new friends in the process.

Muslim in America

Based on the Imam series from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/nyregion/05imam.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Sheik Reda Shata’s journey is quite a remarkable one, and it’s satisfying to see not only how much he has learned throughout his journey, but how much he appreciates that his opportunities have given him.

"America transformed me from a person of rigidity to flexibility, I went from a country where a sheik would speak and the people listened to one where the sheik talks and the people talk back."

It is amazing how people, biologically nearly identical, can vary so drastically in their views on the world and the way they are programmed to think. Some of us are stubborn and refuse to acknowledge the differences amongst cultures, but Mr. Shata understands that rules must be bent at times to accommodate the lifestyles of others. He realizes that the life he had back in Egypt can never be the same in America, so he has become flexible with his views and understanding of a different culture.

In this tense world filled with religious hostility and ignorance, seeing a person who can acclimate himself to a new world, all the while holding on to deeply rooted beliefs is an impressive yet sadly an endangered quality.

“A judge sentences. A doctor tries to remedy”

Unlike in many Islamic nations, Mr. Shata does not punish those who disobey or break the rules, because he realizes everyone is going to make mistakes. Instead, he carefully analyzes the situation and creates a solution rather than condemning the convicted. This is another aspect of his teachings that I find would be very helpful for many religions, not just Islam to adopt and assist in alleviating some of the negative perspectives on religion.

King of the Hill

Couldn't draw it better myself. But, can you really blame them, with 15% of the electorate following the Religious Right, it seems only wise to befriend the people who could get you the necessary votes to win an election. And for the leaders of the Religious Right, it is also a wise move to support certain politicians, as the politicians ultimately hold the power to make decision that will effect how society is governed. It is interesting though that this cartoon makes it seem so one-sided, even though in reality it most likely is closer to this then the other way around. But since it the Christians that want the policy changes and desire the ideals of the Right to be reproduced throughout America, I wonder why the politicians allow them to control the power and how they are the ones that end up on their knees. But is it worth it for the politicians to rebel, and defend themselves. Churches can use the threat of excommunication, in which case the vast majority of any follower would most likely not vote for that candidate anymore, but in turn, he or she would earn the respect of people who are on the fence because of their bravery and sticking to their principles. It could also set a standard for other potential candidates who have slightly different beliefs then their church to have the confidence to stand against their church and speak what they truly believe rather than what they are told/asked to think and speak. If that idea doesn't work, it might be up to the voters themselves, to start thinking outside the box and try to show the candidates that they aren't interested in what the Catholics have to say, or the Protestants, but what the candidate themselves think is the best policy for our country.

The Double Standard of Sensitivity

Although I have not been blessed with the opportunity to witness all too much of this in my life, it does exist, and not just with Christians, but with almost all groups of people across the spectrum of race, religion and political view. It seems like people have no problem trying to impose their beliefs on people who do not share the same view, but if those people in turn, criticize or disagree with any of the aggressors opinions they become offended and enraged. I have no problem with a healthy debate and exchange of opinions, but I do have a problem when someone blatantly disrespects another person simply because they have an opposing belief. We all are raised differently, in different environments and by different parents; so it seems nearly impossible that we would all share the same opinions. In the end, establishing the difference between who is right and what is wrong is not only implausible, but a waste of time.

Move-In Day

Found it a little interesting. Regardless of whether religion is taking the place of ethics, I do believe that ethics have been displaced a little bit by both parties. It's extremely disappointing to see all the corruption in the government, but not all too surprising when you consider the monetary rewards in exchange for the unethical acts. but is even more saddening when the corruption is linked to religion.

Part 2

...The missing piece? How about the Religious Right in America? What about those staunch conservatives like Ann Coulter, the late Jerry Farwell, and maybe even George Bush? Did Pat Robertson ever think about how his complaints about the Islamic religion being a façade for political domination by a group of radicals are could be juxtaposed to the ideals of the far right Christians of the US. Now, I understand that terrorism and suicide bombings aren’t scare tactics of these faith-filled politicians and preachers, but that does not change what the main goal they are trying to accomplish is. Both, in my mind, would love nothing more than for all the non-believers, all the homosexuals, all the Jews, and all those who fight against them to either conform and “find the light,” or simply just go to hell.

This is where the media serves as a clear advantage to the power-hungry religious and political leaders of the Christian Right. They spread their word through the radio, tv, and mail and use the power of persuasion through fear and the possibly of great riches to attract the naïve and helpless to join their cause.

I wonder why it is so easy to spread these radical beliefs across the nation through these media outlets, but so difficult to create a counter attack against the mega-churches who prey on the poor. Is there even a way to convince people that they are being led down the path to emptiness without offering them something tangible to please their needs.

Religion, a Worldly threat: 1

Though Mr. Robertson’s ideas might be a bit exaggerated and possibly a little on the harsh side, I do have to agree some what wit the fact that Islam, though indeed a religion just like any other, is used in large part for political and social gain by Islamic leaders throughout the world. There should be no surprise that many if not most of the nations around the world under the rule of Islam have deeply routed political and social struggles that the citizens within those countries have little to no control over. Religion shifts from being a place people can go to when the feel lost, alone, scared, thankful, to a place people in power can use to abuse their position and kneel followers over in submission because of their deeply rooted faith. I do feel bad for the true religious Muslims, who have their name smeared by green-eyed politicians whose sole purpose for preaching the religion is for self-gain. This is my main argument for why religion needs to stay out of the political world, there is rarely an advantage that can be reaped by all parties involved, and the disadvantages are typically far worse and irreversible. But even with the case Pat Robertson is trying to make, there is something I believe he might be missing…

Final Inning

“Politicians use God for their own profane purposes”

So maybe it isn’t that religion has a negative effect on politics, maybe it’s that manipulative people, who work their way to the top, are wise enough to understand they can use God’s name to their advantage. Maybe religion is only bad when it is the hand of the wrong, or the intelligent people. But can we blame them? Is it their fault for exploiting the naïve? Or the naïve for taking God’s name for granted?

It is tough to say with the inherent nature of mankind whether enough people would actually desire to do only what is for the greater good of their people instead of becoming corrupt like so many leaders in our worlds short history have proven to do. Even if people start as innocent and heavenly souls, it is unclear whether or not a massive surge in the amount of power over other people they could possess would cause a change of heart.

As to the question of whether one can give their life to their country without religion, Sharpton nails it when he says it does take a belief in something bigger. Nothing specific, and maybe not God himself, but I do agree that it is hard to allow yourself to put your life in the hands of something bigger than you are physically, and not have a belief that something intangible is also there to support you mentally.

Some more ball

Why does religion keep popping back up in politics, why are the religious organizations so persistent in threatening politicians that excommunication will be the punishment for going against a view of the church in the political field?

Sharpton’s argument is somewhat convincing, stating that religious organizations do not want deviations of their beliefs, held by elected officials, making a bad reflection of the religion in the public’s eye. Although this may seem like a reasonable point, I see it negatively affecting the way politics are run. It creates a sense of power to the religions who dominate the political arena and allows for a clear disadvantage to the minorities who occupy a far less amount of seats and power in Washington and across the United States.

For me, this goes back to the idea that religion and politics will never find a way to stray away from each other. There is too much at stake, too much power involved, for any one or any group to let that opportunity pass by them, especially when someone else is likely to snatch it up.

Sadly, like the crisis in the Middle East, I do not see a solution to the problem, nor do I see any side making a valiant attempt at finding a way to compromise and look for a happy median.

Hardball, Soft bats

So Christopher Hitchens is a bit of a radical and his beliefs contradict mine a bit in regards to religion, but regardless of how I feel, I have to give the man credit for making consistently great arguments and has decent evidence in defense of every question being thrown at him.

An interesting point I thought Hitchens made was that religion did not have a part in Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. The Methodist and Catholic Church, along with many others, Hitchens says, did not support the war from the beginning, so it seems clear that religion did not give Bush the motivation to send troops over to the Middle East.

The next point is the question of whether everyone prays to one God, or a multitude of gods in respect to political leaders in different regions of the world. My personal belief is that there is one God, who has similar expectations and foundations for any believer regardless of faith. Sharpton thinks that although there is only one God, yet people receive misguided answers from different Gods. I’m not sure what that means, or if it makes any sense at all, but I understand the point he is trying to get at is that people might twist their idea of what story God has given them to gain the advantage they can for themselves and their people.

Sharpton’s comment on Mitt Romney’s candidacy being ended by people who truly believe in God because they will not vote for him is beyond hypocritical and his defense on Hardball is even more pathetic.

Scandals are so Convincing

Yeah I know, it is a bit out-dated, but it related to the topic we discussed in class of Televangelists. The thing I find most saddening about this entire scandal, is the fact that it is not over. This video had to of been made in the early 90’s, and it seemed like a pretty big crisis back then, but for some reason the rush is back and people are once again flocking to these money-hungry churches. My question is not so much what is wrong with the system to allow these kinds of behaviors and actions to go through, but what are these “reverends” and entrepreneurs doing so right that is attracting such a big crowd?

I have to give the Bakker’s credit though, their apology did come out very sincere, and the tears of Tammy while being interviewed in regards to her husband’s blown cover are truly convincing, and her innocence when asked about her salary seems heart-warming; and it worked. I think what needs to be done is education to these poor areas that are being exploited. There needs to be a mediating group that can counter this televangelist revolution and stop the bleeding before it gets any worse. It is not a coincidence that the majority of people that associate themselves with these false religions are in the poorer income bracket. It’s not too hard to understand why these are the types of people being taken advantage of, and not the wealthy folks in Orange County, or the Businessmen and women in New York. And this isn’t to say that the religious views of the wealthy are any more accurate or concrete. But those who have more money, typically are able to be better educated and experience and hear more of what the world has to offer, rather than thinking they can send the remaining balance on their credit card in to God with promises of unbound fortune to follow.

"Bill Maher on Religion"

The “rational minority” according to Bill Maher can potentially make a difference in the American political system, a system which thrives off of a religious background deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The question the Bill Maher raises is whether or not the American public will ever get over its religious ties to politics, and learn to leave the government and their personal religious beliefs separate. My only critique of this philosophy is that many of the mainstream issues circulating through the media and that are highly covered around any election time are issues that have answers strongly mixed with the religious views of the majority of Americans. It’ll be hard to stray away from the temptation of mixing faith and politics, especially when the public has made it clear that some sort of religious affiliation is a necessity for any would-be President (atheist being the least likely to get a vote from the American public).

What needs to be understood among the opposing religions when deciding whether or not a Presidential candidate’s religion will make a difference, is that every religion has its abstract on imaginative stories with somewhat unrealistic and scientifically unproven miracles, and we can not single out one religion’s stories and say that they are any different than our own. Although the world Bill Maher imagines seems like an ideal one, one where people don’t hold prejudices based on intangible beliefs and don’t base their political platforms from revelations from God, it seems highly unlikely and far-fetched to think that America will soon deviate from its deeply rooted religious history.

South Park

South Park may not be the best symbol that America should emulate, but I do consider their point of view (Trey Stone and Matt Parker), to be a realistic and sensible way to calm the quarrels of the religiously sensitive. The video is an interview referencing the episode where the climax was supposed to be the revealing of the prophet Mohammed. Although there were originally planning on airing the scene, Comedy Central eventually folded and ordered them not to show his face.

But look at how Matt and Trey treat all the other entities they ridicule and satirize, Jesus is a somewhat important character who appears often in episodes, and rarely as a saint-like son of God. The devil also plays a decent sized role, and special guests have been Saddam and the leaders of the Church of Scientology. There seems to be no limit on whom they poke fun of, and even through all the criticism they receive, the show remains incredibly popular. I just find it hypocritical that exceptions have to be made in fear of retaliation, when they is no doubt that Muslim cartoonists and columnist also make jokes at the ideas and philosophies that they find radical and obscure.

America needs to take a page of Stone and Parker’s book, and learn to take things less seriously, especially when it is something that is harmless, something as child-like as a cartoon. I know certain things needs to be taking seriously and respectfully, and I understand that a major concern is the ignorance that can stem from false truths about a religion based on stereotypes, but ultimately we can learn from things like this by asking questions and doing the research ourselves.

No way out?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

It’s tough to say what I would do if I were in Romney’s situation. If there was one huge issue I could change about the way Romney is going about this barrage of interviews criticizing his religion, is to be open and honest with more questions. I realize that he does not want his religion to make or break his candidacy, but at a certain point he has to understand that the scrutiny is not going to cease, not until he drops out, loses, or answers the questions. And since personally, I see him as a viable candidate with a legitimate shot of winning, I feel that he would be better suited in the long run to try and please the public’s curiosity. On the other hand, I think he has done a good job reiterating to reporters that he will make sure his religion stays out of his policy making. I would also prefer, though entirely unrealistic, that journalists and reporters focus more on other areas of his life, such as the success of the Winter Olympics in Utah, or his strong term as Governor of Massachusetts.

I believe there is a good reason why Mormonism is looked at as such a “weird” religion in the eyes of the public, even with their newly discovered religious tolerance. They are sheltered, hidden from the limelight that religious such as Catholicism, Judaism, and Muslims share. Although I’m sure they do not mind what their perception is outside of their community, Romney might want to reconsider keeping quiet about the ins and outs of his religion, especially if he wants to have success in the primaries, which are full of critical conservatives and opposing liberals.

Supreme Decision

Link

Although I had not heard of this court decision, I am not surprised to see that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. I can understand that they do not want the courts to be flooded with hundreds upon thousands of cases, most of which would probably be insignificant and too vague to make a decision, but I do agree with the opposition that this limits the separation of church and state amendment. When it comes down to it though, there are too many people out there that would sue the government for personal issues and try to contest things that they personally do not agree with, and seeing how deeply rooted religion can be in some people, even if they receive a ruling against them, the appeal process could end up causing an even larger back-up in the system. I am a personal believer in the clear separation of church and state, but experiencing the last five-ten years of my life, and watching how many ridiculously stupid cases have been brought to the courts, I would not want to deal with that as a judge either. I realize that this is something much more serious than McDonald’s coffee spilling on someone’s lap, but I also do not think religion is something concrete enough to be brought to court on a consistent basis and from many different angles. It will take time to see whether or not this decision, made nearly six months ago, will end have having a dramatic effect, or whether there is just a false alarm.