My mind drifts to old U2 song, Pride (In the Name of Love) as I read today's news about the pastor in Florida who wants to burn a copy of the Quran in observance of 9/11, and the words come screaming through my head, ". . . in the name of love."
"One man come in the name of love,
"One man come and go.
"One man come he to justify,
"One man to overthrow.
"In the name of love,
"What more, in the name of love?"
Oh, the things we do in the name of love. A pastor, in the name of loving God, plans to burn the most sacred book of the Muslims. And, how do people respond to the poor pastor? Well, he says he has received more than 100 death threats.
Hate, in the name of love? So much around us these last few month, so much of what has been in the news, reflects hate, in the name of love.
The Rev. Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida, if he doesn't change his mind, will stage "International Burn-A-Quran Day" Saturday. A host of government officials, from Gen. David Petraeus to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, have rebuked Jones for his plans.
Rebuking is in order. Death threats are way overboard, but trying to talk Jones out of it is not.
The words of another old song come to my mind. You might remember them:
"Go ahead and hate a neighbor,
"Go ahead and hate a friend.
"Do it in the name of heaven,
"You can justify it in the end.
"But there won't be any soldiers standing,
"Come the judgement day.
"The bloody morning after,
"One tin soldier, rides away."
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Regardless Their Motive, Let Mosque be Built
Let the mosque be built.
This, even though one wonders if it is intended as a victory mosque, celebrating the great conquest of 9/11. Mosques built in tribute to great conquests are scattered throughout Islamic history. It is the Great Mosque of Cordoba that has been so much considered in news coverage of the Ground Zero mosque.
Cordoba, Spain, stood as one of the singular great cities of the world in ancient times.
Even as New York City is one of the greatest cities in the world today.
A Christian cathedral stood at that spot in Cordoba before the mosque. It was a magnificent building in its own right, before it was reworked into a Muslim mosque. So stunning the mosque was, it become known in medieval times as one of the wonders of the world. Even today, with the forest effect of hundreds of columns supporting its interior, the building is still considered by some to be a wonder of the world. A Catholic cathedral is now situated in the in middle of the building, so I assume the Catholics may own it.
The mosque/cultural center at Ground Zero, by comparison, for all we know will be but just another building along the Manhattan skyline. Still, as a $100-million, 13 story edifice, it will not exactly be a small, modest structure.
It is the name the Ground Zero mosque might take -- the Cordoba House -- that of course has drawn it to be compared to the Great Mosque of Cordoba, Spain.
Other great Muslim mosques built where Christian edifices previously stood, signifying conquest? I am told of these: Where once stood the Temple Mount, Judaism's most holy shrine, there came the Dome of the Rock -- and it became one of Islam's most holy shrines. Nor was that enough, a second mosque, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on the southern end of the Temple Mount, over the Basilica of St. Mary of Justinian. The Grand Mosque of Damascus was built where the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist had stood.
Take a Christian site, and built over it, stamping yourself as a conqueror. Those behind the mosque near Ground Zero might not be able to built right on top of where the World Trade Center was, but they are within nudging distance.
Of course we are going to wonder if the Ground Zero mosque will be a victory mosque. Mark Silverberg added to my wondering when he, in a Sept. 3 web post in the Hudson New York, said the Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf intends to raise funds for the cultural center/mosque by raising the funds from "the most authoritarian, least religiously tolerant Arab regimes in the Middle East."
Silverberg also reports that Rauf claims U.S. policy was responsible for the 9/11 attack.
Is he accurate on these two points? For, if he is, it leaves me wishing the mosque would not be built so near Ground Zero.
But, least we jump too quick to assume this is a victory mosque a-coming, read what Dwight Fine has to say on the the mydesert.com website. Fine says the Cordoba House is not a reminder of conquest, but rather of when Islam was at its best. He says the Islamic conquerors back then were tolerant of Christians, and tolerant of Jews. "The name can serve as a message to Muslims and non-Muslims alike not to drift into the religious fundamentalism that destroyed a great civilization," he writes.
Well, while I may lament that the mosque is coming, wondering if the same folks who brought us 9/11 are also behind the mosque and planning it as a victory lap, I say, let them built it. (If it is but another Muslim mosque, with no ties to terrorists, then without reservation, definitely let it be built.)
Let their religious rights and property rights be respected. Let them build, to be turning our other cheek. Let them build to be forgiving. Let them build because it really doesn't matter if they have a conquest shrine. Let them build because we should not judge, and don't know for certain what their motive is.
This, even though one wonders if it is intended as a victory mosque, celebrating the great conquest of 9/11. Mosques built in tribute to great conquests are scattered throughout Islamic history. It is the Great Mosque of Cordoba that has been so much considered in news coverage of the Ground Zero mosque.
Cordoba, Spain, stood as one of the singular great cities of the world in ancient times.
Even as New York City is one of the greatest cities in the world today.
A Christian cathedral stood at that spot in Cordoba before the mosque. It was a magnificent building in its own right, before it was reworked into a Muslim mosque. So stunning the mosque was, it become known in medieval times as one of the wonders of the world. Even today, with the forest effect of hundreds of columns supporting its interior, the building is still considered by some to be a wonder of the world. A Catholic cathedral is now situated in the in middle of the building, so I assume the Catholics may own it.
The mosque/cultural center at Ground Zero, by comparison, for all we know will be but just another building along the Manhattan skyline. Still, as a $100-million, 13 story edifice, it will not exactly be a small, modest structure.
It is the name the Ground Zero mosque might take -- the Cordoba House -- that of course has drawn it to be compared to the Great Mosque of Cordoba, Spain.
Other great Muslim mosques built where Christian edifices previously stood, signifying conquest? I am told of these: Where once stood the Temple Mount, Judaism's most holy shrine, there came the Dome of the Rock -- and it became one of Islam's most holy shrines. Nor was that enough, a second mosque, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on the southern end of the Temple Mount, over the Basilica of St. Mary of Justinian. The Grand Mosque of Damascus was built where the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist had stood.
Take a Christian site, and built over it, stamping yourself as a conqueror. Those behind the mosque near Ground Zero might not be able to built right on top of where the World Trade Center was, but they are within nudging distance.
Of course we are going to wonder if the Ground Zero mosque will be a victory mosque. Mark Silverberg added to my wondering when he, in a Sept. 3 web post in the Hudson New York, said the Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf intends to raise funds for the cultural center/mosque by raising the funds from "the most authoritarian, least religiously tolerant Arab regimes in the Middle East."
Silverberg also reports that Rauf claims U.S. policy was responsible for the 9/11 attack.
Is he accurate on these two points? For, if he is, it leaves me wishing the mosque would not be built so near Ground Zero.
But, least we jump too quick to assume this is a victory mosque a-coming, read what Dwight Fine has to say on the the mydesert.com website. Fine says the Cordoba House is not a reminder of conquest, but rather of when Islam was at its best. He says the Islamic conquerors back then were tolerant of Christians, and tolerant of Jews. "The name can serve as a message to Muslims and non-Muslims alike not to drift into the religious fundamentalism that destroyed a great civilization," he writes.
Well, while I may lament that the mosque is coming, wondering if the same folks who brought us 9/11 are also behind the mosque and planning it as a victory lap, I say, let them built it. (If it is but another Muslim mosque, with no ties to terrorists, then without reservation, definitely let it be built.)
Let their religious rights and property rights be respected. Let them build, to be turning our other cheek. Let them build to be forgiving. Let them build because it really doesn't matter if they have a conquest shrine. Let them build because we should not judge, and don't know for certain what their motive is.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama Calling for More Stimulus Money
President Barack Obama, according to an Associated Press story I read as I rolled out of bed this morning, is proposing more than $50 billion be spent on roads, railways and runways, in the name of stimulating the economy.
The infrastructure spending is part of a larger package the Obama Administration announced this morning. Obama is set to discuss his proposal later today at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.
The infrastructure spending is part of a larger package the Obama Administration announced this morning. Obama is set to discuss his proposal later today at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.
Turn To The Rich For Spending
Part of President Obama's solution is correct: Money should be infused into the economy.
He is wrong, though, about who should be called on to spend the large sums of money. Uncle Sam is broke. The national debt, too, is a threat to the economy. So why try fixing the economy by threatening it further?
Let those who have the money be the spenders.
Ours is a nation full of billionaires, most of them being good, solid citizens. Many of them double as what we call philanthropists, giving large sums to charity.
I would think that for the asking, they would start a few new businesses. That, too, is injecting money into the economy -- and its letting those who have the money do the spending.
It's getting the rich to pay for the fix without taxing them.
It's letting the private enterprise system solve the problem instead of the government.
Let's appeal to our rich to be civic-minded in creating companies that may not necessarily turn a profit, companies geared not toward making money but providing jobs. Let's put a company at each pocket of unemployment, creating one for the beggars and panhandlers downtown, another for those on any Indian reservation where jobs are lacking, another for those on TANF (the common welfare program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), another for those on Unemployment Insurance, and another for those at the homeless shelters.
Let's take the jobs to the unemployed. Let's offer them jobs wherever we find them. Let's solve our economy by having those who have the money do the investing, on their own and without being taxed.
Government doesn't need to solve all our problems. We, as the people, can be the solution.
He is wrong, though, about who should be called on to spend the large sums of money. Uncle Sam is broke. The national debt, too, is a threat to the economy. So why try fixing the economy by threatening it further?
Let those who have the money be the spenders.
Ours is a nation full of billionaires, most of them being good, solid citizens. Many of them double as what we call philanthropists, giving large sums to charity.
I would think that for the asking, they would start a few new businesses. That, too, is injecting money into the economy -- and its letting those who have the money do the spending.
It's getting the rich to pay for the fix without taxing them.
It's letting the private enterprise system solve the problem instead of the government.
Let's appeal to our rich to be civic-minded in creating companies that may not necessarily turn a profit, companies geared not toward making money but providing jobs. Let's put a company at each pocket of unemployment, creating one for the beggars and panhandlers downtown, another for those on any Indian reservation where jobs are lacking, another for those on TANF (the common welfare program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), another for those on Unemployment Insurance, and another for those at the homeless shelters.
Let's take the jobs to the unemployed. Let's offer them jobs wherever we find them. Let's solve our economy by having those who have the money do the investing, on their own and without being taxed.
Government doesn't need to solve all our problems. We, as the people, can be the solution.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Vote for Jackson is Vote for Unpopular Stand
Every day or so, I refer to a news story and then follow with my stand on a related issue, or on the story itself. Today, I pick the lead story from the Tribune to talk about, and I follow it with my opinion on immigration. I have long been in favor of giving immigrants citizenship right at the border, but today I take the strongest stand I have yet championing the illegal resident.
I am a candidate for the Utah Legislature, House District 41.
-- John Jackson
I am a candidate for the Utah Legislature, House District 41.
-- John Jackson
14th Amendment Defended, Debated
They gathered at the This Is The Place Monument Friday, some folks who don't want to see the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment done away with.
"It's so sad to think that we now will be creating a second class . . . of citizens," Luz Robles, a state senator, was quoted as saying in the Salt Lake Tribune.
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all born on American soil, which includes children of illegal immigrants.
The Tribune article also reported the stands of Senator Orrin Hatch, candidate for Senate Mike Lee, and Congressman Jason Chaffetz.
Hatch doesn't see the need to change the Constitution, but he backs legislation to require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to have citizenship.
The Tribune article said Lee also supports the legislation, and said Chaffetz is co-sponsor to the House bill that would make the change. The Tribune said both Hatch and Chaffetz back a Constitutional Amendment if the proposed legislation does not bring about the change.
My thought? I say it would take an amendment to make the change. Otherwise you are breaking the Constitution. Says the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
"It's so sad to think that we now will be creating a second class . . . of citizens," Luz Robles, a state senator, was quoted as saying in the Salt Lake Tribune.
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all born on American soil, which includes children of illegal immigrants.
The Tribune article also reported the stands of Senator Orrin Hatch, candidate for Senate Mike Lee, and Congressman Jason Chaffetz.
Hatch doesn't see the need to change the Constitution, but he backs legislation to require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to have citizenship.
The Tribune article said Lee also supports the legislation, and said Chaffetz is co-sponsor to the House bill that would make the change. The Tribune said both Hatch and Chaffetz back a Constitutional Amendment if the proposed legislation does not bring about the change.
My thought? I say it would take an amendment to make the change. Otherwise you are breaking the Constitution. Says the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Leave 14th Amendment Alone
Let's leave the 14th Amendment alone. Regardless whether their parents were papered allowing them to be in the U.S., still the millions who are growing up or have grown up in the U.S. are as good and deserving as the rest of us.
Let's not disenfranchise them. Let's not, as State Senator Luz Rubles warned, relegate them to second-class citizens.
Someone would argue that if they are not citizens, they cannot be "second-class citizens," but the point is we should not be making them second-class members of our society.
Nor, for that matter, do I like us relegating their parents to second class. Do I favor amnesty, then? I favor citizenship for those who would immigrate to the U.S.
By making it so hard for them to come live in the U.S., forcing them to wait years, we are saying immigration to this country is to some extent illegal.
I suppose that is evident in the term "Illegal immigrant."
Rather than amending the Constitution to make yet more people "illegal," I believe we should change our border policies to allow more people to immigrate. There is nothing inherently wrong with an immigrant. Let's screen out the criminals, but let's not screen out the immigrants just for being an immigrants.
Consider the 72 migrants in Mexico massacred 100 miles from the U.S. border a week or so ago. Coming from Central and South American countries, they were forced to come through the drug-gang invested territory of Mexico in order to reach the U.S. The drug runners, laying in wait to "assist" people across the U.S. border, found them, and tried to press them into their service. They declined to join the gangsters, and were shot.
Our policies against immigration force the innocent into the hands of the lawless. Although this time, the migrants refused to bend, many times the migrants join in with the drug cartels.
Our immigration policies are swelling the ranks of the gangsters.
Legalize more immigration, legalize more people . . . and leave the 14th Amendment alone.
Let's not disenfranchise them. Let's not, as State Senator Luz Rubles warned, relegate them to second-class citizens.
Someone would argue that if they are not citizens, they cannot be "second-class citizens," but the point is we should not be making them second-class members of our society.
Nor, for that matter, do I like us relegating their parents to second class. Do I favor amnesty, then? I favor citizenship for those who would immigrate to the U.S.
By making it so hard for them to come live in the U.S., forcing them to wait years, we are saying immigration to this country is to some extent illegal.
I suppose that is evident in the term "Illegal immigrant."
Rather than amending the Constitution to make yet more people "illegal," I believe we should change our border policies to allow more people to immigrate. There is nothing inherently wrong with an immigrant. Let's screen out the criminals, but let's not screen out the immigrants just for being an immigrants.
Consider the 72 migrants in Mexico massacred 100 miles from the U.S. border a week or so ago. Coming from Central and South American countries, they were forced to come through the drug-gang invested territory of Mexico in order to reach the U.S. The drug runners, laying in wait to "assist" people across the U.S. border, found them, and tried to press them into their service. They declined to join the gangsters, and were shot.
Our policies against immigration force the innocent into the hands of the lawless. Although this time, the migrants refused to bend, many times the migrants join in with the drug cartels.
Our immigration policies are swelling the ranks of the gangsters.
Legalize more immigration, legalize more people . . . and leave the 14th Amendment alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)