JGoodblog:Justice-Faith-Reason

Monday, February 19, 2007

DIVISIONS IN ISLAM

(This is a talk prepared for a county teachers'
dinner meeting.)

What's Europe's fastest-growing religion? If
you said, "Islam," you were right. Anyone
know why? Me neither. But two facts stand
out: (facts without opinion are dull, opinion
without facts is futile.) 1) Birthrate: there
are one billion, 300 million Muslims in the
world, and they are reproducing three
times as fast as we are, including the
Europeans. 2) Dead Christianity. Church
attendance is under 5% in Europe. In many
countries it's only two or three per cent.
Secularism has won. Will it water-down
and degrade European Islam with
materialism, as it has it's Christianity?

That brings us to the different kinds of
Islam. There are many: almost as many
as there are varieties of Christians. The
two most important divisions however,
are the one between seculars and
Islamists, and the one between Shia and
Sunnis. The latter is probably the most
decisive of all, even though only 15% of
the world's Muslims are Shia. 85% are
Sunnis. The key fact about this is that
the Middle East is about equally
divided between Shia and Sunni. That's
because most of the world's Shia are
concentrated in that area, in Iraq (60% of
the pop.), Iran (90%), and Bahrain (70%).

It all began about 1400 years ago, when
an illiterate camel driver went to pray in
a cave and was visited by the angel
Gabriel, who commanded him to "recite."
That resulted in the Koran, the holy book
of Islam. Muhammad was invited by the
people of Medina to set up religious rule
of their city, where he presided wisely and
well. Christians and Jew resided there with
his blessing, along side his religious
followers. They were not regarded or
treated as "infidels."

Muhammad died in 632 a.d. without
naming a leader to succeed him. That
omission caused unending mischief. One
segment of followers accepted the
prophet's able assistant to replace him.
This group would be the Sunnis (followers
of the example.) To them, the leader's
character and ability were the main
concern. But there was another group,
who wanted to follow someone who was
directly related to the prophet's family.
They chose to follow Mohammad's son-
in-law, Ali, a cousin of the prophet, and
husband of his oldest daughter. This
repeatedly led to power struggles
resulting in violence, hatred, and the
bitterness that has now come to
distinguish relations between the two
factions.

The Shia (followers of Ali) have long
been abused, misused, reviled and
humiliated wherever and whenever
they lived among Arabs, who often
deny that Shia are even Muslims,
and regard them as sub-human.
They have been particularly ill-used
in Iraq under Saddam, even though
they are a large majority there. They
are now demanding majority rule in
Iraq, a demand backed by their
fellow Shia next door in Iran. The
Sunnis, much like Southern whites
in the U. S. after the civil war, are
incredulous that they are expected
to let inferiors in every way be
allowed to rule over them. It is
unthinkable to them, and they
will fight to the death against
allowing that to happen. They
are backed by Sunnis in Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other
nearby countries. We were warned
that removing Saddam would take
the lid off this ancient quarrel, to
Iran's advantage, and would
invite total chaos. The warnings
were ignored as groundless, as
were other warnings that more
troops would be required than
were being planned.

Needless to say, there is little we can
do now to stop this civil war in Iraq,
other than get our troops out of the
middle of it, if we even have the sense
to do that much.

Now my time is gone, because I want to
leave some time for questions. The other
division that is crucial in Islam is the one
between the secularists, who are basically
pro democracy and want to live peacefully
with the West, and on the other hand, the
Islamists, who want religious rule, and may
or may not advocate violence to extend
their rule. "Secular"means, basically,
nonreligious. These people are not devout.
They are like nominal Christians who would
rather fish on Sunday, or play golf than go
to church. They are the majority of
Muslims, worldwide. We need to work
with them to extend the rule of reason
and cooperation in the fight against
terrorism. They have as much to lose
as we do if the crazies win.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

STRAW MEN & NONSENSE

Today's letter to The Oregonian:

Jonah Goldberg in "Maybe a Dem Should Win"
(2/19/07), says: "If you believe that the war on
terrorism is real, then you think it is inevitable
(emphasis mine) that more and bloodier
conflicts with radical Islam are on the way . . ."
He then says (falsely) that this view is only
held "by a comparative handful on the left."
Actually, no Democratic leader denies we are
in a global struggle with terrorism, or that it is
deadly serious. That's simply a straw man.

The "inevitable" part is also wrong. An
equitable and lasting settlement of the
Palestinian struggle for justice would end
much of the basis for terrorism in the
Middle East, as Muslim leaders have long
maintained. Further, a working relationship
with Iran (and the U. S.) could not only
help achieve stability in Iraq, but could help
us against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Iran
hates those two as much as we do.
Nothing is "inevitable" except the
consequences of stupidity. We reap what
we sow.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

Thursday, February 15, 2007

MORE NONSENSE

Mr. Bush: "I firmly believe: If we don't whip
them over there they'll follow us over here."
And if we do whip them there, they won't
come here again? How does that follow?

Well, he may believe that non sequitur, but I
don't think so. It wasn't one of the reasons
dreamed up for invading Iraq. When those
firmly believed false reasons were exposed,
he firmly believed this nonsense. A clear
majority of our public (some 70%) know
that it's hogwash, and want us out of Dodge.

Why would Iraqis (95% of the insurgency)
fully occupied in a life-or-death battle
between Sunnis and Shiites want to follow
us here? That struggle has gone on for
centuries, and will undoubtedly continue,
without us.

Who are "they," anyway? He could only be
referring to the 5% in Iraq led by al-Qaeda.
Regarding them, I wrote yesterday to the
Albany, OR Democrat-Herald: "Rich
Kellum asks (ltrs. 2/14/07) what part of
his tirade the left doesn't understand. I
suppose he's referring to the 70% of
Americans who disagree with him. And
the answer is: all of it, because it's all false.

The ones fighting us in Iraq are not
killing our people because of the way we
worship. Christians lived peacefully
with Muslims in Mohammad's day with
his blessing, and have done so ever
since. It's what we do, Rich, that's
upsetting to them. Osama has spelled
that out repeatedly, and he has no
interest in our religion, except to note
from time to time that we don't
follow it ourselves. He points out also
that he doesn't attack such Christian
countries as Sweden.

How and why we got into Iraq is
hardly irrelevant, as you claim. 95%
of the insurgents are Iraqis resisting
our brutal occupation that has
destroyed major cities and killed at
least 100,000 of their people. They
just want us out. NOW. They won't
follow us here, as you fear. They are
too busy there with their own turf
battles.

Al-Qaeda was attacking us here
before Iraq, and will continue after,
no matter what happens there. They
will just regroup elsewhere. They
aren't going away. They are stronger
because of Iraq, as our own
intelligence people have reported.
We are on a fool's errand there. Our
public understands that, as do our
troops over there. Former Marine
officer Ollie North just returned
from talking to them, and fellow
Marines told him the "surge" is a
mistake. It's only Bush/Cheney
and their parrots who don't get it.
Have a nice day.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

LETTTER

Today's letter to The Oregonian:

Phillip Simone (ltrs 2/13/07) is incorrect in
describing Iran as the nation which "has
repeatedly pledged to destroy Israel." It is
actually their wild-talking president who
uses such hyperbole. (As does ours).
Iran's U. N. envoy assures us that their
nation has no such intention.

Our president has promised to rid the world
of evil and wipe terrorism from the face of
the earth. Both presidents are steadily
losing support, and their sides have lost in
recent elections. They shouldn't be taken
seriously.

Nor is Iran "the No. 1 sponser of terrorism
throughout the world," as Mr. Simone (and
the Bush administration) charges. Al Qaeda
is. Iran opposes al Qaeda as fiercely as we do.
They helped us against al Qaeda and the
Taliban in Afghanistan, and have offered to
do so again.

They do support Hamas and Hezbollah in
opposition to Israel's brutal, illegal
occupation of Palestine. Those are not
considered "terrorist organizations" in the
Muslim world. They are seen there as
legitimate freedom fighters, and Iran is
widely seen as a hero for helping them.
Most of the rest of the world agrees with
Iran on that one.

If we will force a just and lasting resolution
of the Palestine/Israel issues, as the Iraq
Study Group (and Jimmy Carter) urges,
there will be no more Hamas and
Hezbollah, and Iran will no longer
support "terrorists." We need to keep
first things first. And keep our facts
straight.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net





Thursday, February 08, 2007

NOT IN CHARGE

George Bush (knocking the French fondness for socialism):
"The French have no word for 'entrepreneur'."

Another Bushism: "I know how hard it is to put food on
your family." (He doesn't)

Nor is he the "decider" in Iraq. Events and Iraqis are. As
Michael Mandelbaum has said: "Right now, the U. S. is
the passenger in a car that other countries are driving ---
and it is not going in the right direction." But even though
George isn't steering, he's still riding the accelerator!

"Today in Iraq, none of the key parties have to make any
choices, and we don't have any choices. That is the
definition of 'stuck'." So writes Tom Friedman in
yesterday's N. Y. Times. He goes on to say: "Right now
we can win only if all the parties in and around Iraq act
in the most farsighted and flexible manner. Otherwise
we lose in our attempt to democratize Iraq, and we're left
holding the bag. . .".

The success of the "surge" will depend on Mr. Maliki.
Edward Luttwak (N. Y. Times, 2/6/07) writes that:
"Mr. Maliki, it seems, simply agreed to whatever was
asked of him, to humor the White House and retain
American support for a little while longer. For the
Iraqi Army and police to disarm the Shiite militias,
the prime minister would have to be a veritable
Stalin or at least a Saddam Hussein, able to
terrorize Iraqi soldiers and policemen into
obedience. Mr. Maliki, of course, has no such
authority over Iraqi soldiers or police officers;
indeed he has little authority over his own 39
person cabinet, whose members mostly
represent sectarian parties with militias of their
own."

As far as being a reconciler, Luttwak writes of
Maliki: "Nor can the Iraqi leader fulfill his other
major promise: leading a new effort to reconcile
the warring sects of Iraq. He is not another
Gandhi, but a leader of the fiercely sectarian
Dawa Party. It is very much as a militant Shiite
that he speaks out; lately he has been threatening
Sunni members of parliament and accusing them
of grave crimes. . . It would be remarkable if Mr.
Maliki could even reconcile with his Shiite
rivals, let alone the Sunni insurgents."

Both Friedman and Luttwak say we should disengage
in Iraq. The latter writes: "The total number of
American troops in Iraq --- even including any
surge --- is so small, and their linguistic skills so
limited, that they have little effect on day to day
security. Nor have they really protected Iraqis from
one another. . . Intelligence is to counterinsurgency
what firepower is to conventional warfare, and we
just do not have it or the capacity to gather information
on our own. Thus the sacrifices of our troops on
the ground are mostly futile."

While we must pray for the success of this surge
if it can't be stopped here at home, and we pray
for the safety of our heroic forces, we must be
aware that the President is gambling with their
lives despite the extremely unpromising odds.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

TRUTH RECOVERY

Once Confucius had achieved some eminence, he sought diligently to be put in charge of a state, in the belief that his ethical principles, if applied to government, would produce a well-ordered
society. He never had that opportunity. The rulers of his day were no more interested in
ending corruption than are ours today.

Once a disciple asked C. what would be his first order of business, if he was in charge of the government. "The rectification of names," he replied immediately. "Meaning?" asked the baffled student. "Truth in labeling" was the essence of the answer. Everything in effective government depends on honesty and clarity in information, so there is no misunderstanding. Without plain and honest speaking, all is confusion, he added. We have lots of confusion today.

We see that all about us, in food labeling, as well as political spinning. "Whole wheat"
bread (unless 100%) is typically refined (white) flour with food coloring and just a dash of
actual whole grain. In politics, "it is reported" frequently introduces outright falsehood as
implied truth, as in "it has been reported that Saddam was buying uranium in Niger." It
does us absolutely no good to know what has been reported. We need to know what is
true! We spend $20 or $30 billion a year on the CIA to find out and tell us what is true.
When something known to be false is nevertheless presented as true in a State of the
Union address, great mischief and error result. We can understand Confucius' concern
for precision in speech.

It is common now in the press to speak of Mr. Bush as "the Commander in Chief." That,
too, is inaccurate speech that allows confusion and abuse. He is not my commander in
chief, nor is he yours, unless you are in the armed forces. The Constitution says that
the president is "commander in chief of the Army and the Navy." Period. A. Lincoln
understood that, and signed his name "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States." What difference does it make? Mr. Bush has ordered secret (illegal)
wire tapping, secret arrests, secret imprisonments and Lord knows what else secret,
under the erroneous (or misused) title, "commander in chief." It is time for that confusion
to be cleared away, and for congress to exercise close oversight of this runaway presidency,
lest the country go over the cliff along with it's Iraq policy.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net