Mistrust Thrives at the Mideast Table

The background of recent Mideast peace talks in Washington, D.C. is notably long and complicated, but few could trace it to its modern day political origins. You could credit President Carter with taking the first step in formal peace talks with the Camp David Accords in 1978 but this agreement came after decades of tension and warfare and we’ve all seen how well it worked. To find the true origin of the 20th century conflict as we know it, one must look deeper into the aftermath of the First World War. As the Ottoman Empire, based in modern Turkey, crumbled after their ill-fated alliance with Germany, the great Western powers carved up this last vestige of the classic empires of old. Both France and Great Britain hoped to gain large portions of the newly available countries rich in history, and a newly desirable product: oil.
Representatives of both nations met behind closed doors to develop an agreement that divided the Middle East into “spheres of influence.” French representative François Georges-Picot and Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain signed the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 essentially ending all hopes of Arab sovereignty that had been dangled in front of many local fighters in exchange for their aid in WWI. (You may remember the agreement if you paid close attention at the end of the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia). This ‘gave’ Syria and parts of Turkey to the French, and Jordan and Iraq to the British while allowing Allied control of today’s Israel. This set up the later creation of the nation of Israel in 1948, but also significantly marked the lack of concern for Arab interests by Western powers.
The hard fact is that Arab nations and peoples do not trust the West, yet we continue to hold the exclusive reigns of any peace effort bandwagon. We should certainly not give up what we believe to be the noble cause because it is difficult, but America needs to look beyond the typical methods and make an effort to bring new negotiators to the table. The unanswerable problem remains that the nation of Israel was established by mandate of the West thus usurping local Palestinian control. Consequently, Israel can never break free of this ‘buddy’ status with the West. They are hated by many pro-Palestinian groups simply for existing, and regardless of your opinion on this issue, this prejudice makes the peace efforts truly a process that America is hardly helping by continuously reminding everyone of the privileged relationship of Israel. I have no good solution here but merely an observation. If you have 4 children and chose a favorite one publically, you would hardly be the person to sit down and discuss fair justice when they all got in a fight. Palestinians believe that the Americans will always side with Israel and that they are merely being pandered to. They need to believe that their presence and opinions are valued and that we are not merely listening just to say we let them talk.

Presidential Requirements? Because Everyone Keeps Wandering Into That Job, Right?

Two men have proposed requiring new United States presidents to present the Chief Justice a hand-written copy of the US Constitution prior to being sworn in. They state that this would make the president’s pledge to uphold and defend the framework of our government against all enemies more real for them. (Read the article) If nothing else it would be a tangible sign they had read it at least once. But whether manually copying the document is a good idea or not, this shows evidence that people are worried about who leads our country and if there are enough requirements for elected officials.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states the only current requirements imposed on a president of the US: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The 22nd amendment added term limits in 1951 rounding out who cannot be the Commander in Chief.
The bottom line: if anyone can survive the American political process at the national level, raise millions of dollars, speak hundreds of times, and get elected, we deserve what we get. Some are angry at our current president and some fear the Sarah Palin’s of the Conservative movement, but individuals on both sides wanting to restrict the highest and hardest to obtain office in the world more than it is already are straining with these ridiculous gimmicks. If you can give a speech that makes chills run up legs or raise millions through $20 online donations you can certainly read well enough to write something word for word out of a book. Instead, the defense should be the American voter. If you don’t believe someone has read the Constitution, or doubt they will truly support it, let people know and vote against them. The founders of our nation placed a few reasonable restrictions on our leadership but understood that the real decision came from the power of the electorate. On a side note, it wouldn’t do us any harm to give that Constitution a look ourselves once in a while even if we aren’t running for office.

Quran Fire Not Quite Out...Maybe

If the vacillating of the reverend Jones teaches us anything it is that his decision to put a hold on the Quran burning event scheduled for Saturday September 11 was not a sincere faith-reasoned judgment. Some believe he cooked the whole thing up with full intentions of using it as a bargaining chip to move the “Ground Zero Mosque.” However, his fervent and erratic statements do not support this theory. Who’s to say what will happen only two short days from now, but there seems to be no genuine change of heart and recognition of error. While a graceful exit would still be possible if the church stated that they were simply driven forward with zealous patriotism and faith and took it too far, I do not believe anyone thinks this will happen. The church simply does not regret its actions and regardless of the impending outcome, their ideas have entered the minds of America and there are always people willing to take up where they left off...if they do leave off, that is.

Quran Burning: Murder with a Match

Modern America touts it toleration above all other nations in the world. You can believe what you want and say almost anything without fear of retribution thanks to stiff language of the Constitution insuring these basic freedoms and rights. And that’s good. In fact, this freedom is what drove people to the American land of opportunity over the past centuries. But we must always remember to use our freedom wisely. We have the great responsibility to be prudent in the exercise of freedom and everything must be weighed against this simple rule: just because it is not illegal does not mean I should do it. As ethical decisions are based in individual hearts, the government cannot legislate morality.
To the issue of religious demonstrations against other faiths: this is never wise. Recently, a Florida pastor announced his plan to publically burn the Quran in an outcry against the September 11, 2001 attacks. This ignited a firestorm of outcry on both sides about the rights of his church and the value, or danger, of such actions. Churches of all stripes believe that they should bring others into agreement with them and they must recognize that over-the-top demonstrations will achieve nothing but hate. Most people agree that a sincere and intelligent dialogue goes much further than angry rhetoric. Some conservatives site the burning of Bibles among some Muslims as a legitimate excuse for burning the Islamic holy text, but any parent of an elementary child could remind them that the egregious disrespect of another does not make it right for you. Sadly, this debate is nothing new.
Historically, society should learn from the mistakes of the past. Book burning in the Middle Ages was common as heretical, or ‘crooked,’ teachings were rounded up and torched along with their owners. Despite a highly intolerant climate across most of the European continent during this time period, the land that would become medieval Spain shown as a beacon of what many scholars describe as the most tolerant society ever. They didn’t all agree and participate in some form of national, ambiguous religion. Instead, the Muslim controlled state of al-Andalus allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religion freely under an old Islamic respect for these other faiths. The phrase Ahl al-Kitābor, or ‘People of the Book,’ is used in the Islamic tradition to describe members of faiths that also rely on religious texts that Muslims believe have been directly revealed by God. To quote the book itself from chapter 29 verse 46, the Quran states: “Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters’” (from the Authorized English Edition). While Christians do not agree that their text is the inspired word from God as they do of parts of the Bible, this climate of respect had value in the 800s, 900s, and 1000s and it has value today in the 2000s a millennium later.
There were instances of tension when people overstepped the allowed actions and infringed on the other faiths. One story includes a Christian man intentionally blaspheming Allah in front of the religious and governmental authorities in an effort to gain martyrdom and incite anti-Muslim fervor. Sound familiar? Today’s religious conflicts often lack fuel until misguided people prop up a burning straw-man to give them a rally cry. We need to look closely at our political and religious leaders. Are they upholding their long-held values or are they using us and our passion to whip-up an out of place and unusual anger? Modern America could learn from Islamic Spain. We do not need to endorse all faiths but simply respect them if they uphold certain moral standards and recognize their members as valuable parts of our collective society. If burning a book in spite has no effect on your personal safety, it is very easy to do and you have that right. Just remember that someone will be blown up and the perpetrators will credit you with pushing the button. It may be a farming family at the food market or an American in uniform. Either way, it should keep you up at night for a while.

Define Radical, (correctly).

A common claim of many liberals is that they don’t have any real problem with Republicans as a group and would love to take part in bipartisan business. Instead, it is the “radicals” that they blame for continued strife. However, when they are put into a position of acting on their bipartisan rhetoric, the pool of radicals grows, and soon there is no one apparently capable of forming serious policy. Sadly, we have once again witnessed the smelting of semantics to promote personal interests. The term radical used to be reserved for murdering dictators and a few openly communist Americans. Now anyone can be sidled with this moniker. The problem is the sly way this is presented to appear self-deprecating by liberals. “I realize there are radicals on both the right and the left but we need to come together in the middle” actually translates as “you all are so stupid that I will appear to admit fault for my party to gain your sympathy (i.e. support).” Here’s the question to ask your liberal friends: Name radicals on both sides. The likely answer is as shocking as predictable. For the left, the astute person will likely list the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) responsible for blowing up many things in the name of the environment. For the right, they will proceed to list Sarah Palin, members of the Tea Party Movement, and a litany of Talk Radio Hosts. The failure of this logic is that the right wing ‘radicals’ listed have never destroyed anything or advocated violence. There are real radicals out there on both sides but they are not the ones gaining national support. Lets reserve ‘radical’ for those who truly are and respect the fact that the rest of us really do care about our nation and want what is best for our citizens.

Why Are We All Here?

Okay, that question is a little to broad to answer in one post, but I will get started. Real life is practical, tangible, and relevant. Why is it that government and faith is discussed in such unpractical and uninformed ways? There is power in sincere and honest truth, and that is my goal. I am an ordinary American seeking plain answers to our biggest problems. It’s about time we had some ordinary thoughts on faith and politics, because we all need purpose to thrive, and you cannot have real purpose without truth.