The wealth paradox

Young people in developed countries unhappy, survey says

Seems like people are a lot happier when they are not so self-sufficient. If that's true, why do we so actively resist dependence, either on God or our neighbors?

a little somethin'-somethin' for the fans

So, I appreciate the few of you who still come to visit my blog, even after months of neglect. So, in return for your allegiance, I pulled a few strings and arranged for you to get some free music. I hear the kids like the (Christian) rock-n-roll these days -- are there any Derek Webb fans in the audience?

it's August

In celebration of my last blog entry's 3 1/2 month anniversary, I decided to pass along a link to some interesting reading (in case you haven't seen it already).

Come on in!

everyone please join me in welcoming Emily on her first visit to our little blogosphere. And, congratulations are in order for a big promotion -- she's now just a couple steps under Senator Lamar Alexander's chief-of-staff (which means she's well-positioned for a run at the presidency in 2016, they'll have waived the age requirements by then). If you Fairfax CofC people don't know Emily, you should, 'cause she's cool and well-connected (both on the hill and internationally with arms dealers, etc.)

energizer issue

yet another news item on freedom/democracy:
Lawmakers rush to blunt anti-gay church

Do you think these people should be allowed to hold such demonstrations?

Potential

"the kid could be something"
intelligent and unambitious
an uncollectible prize;
they say ignorance is bliss
but happiness doesn't comply
and nothing often follows
a promising start.

"the kid could be something"
athletic and timid
an unequipped talent;
I say maturity takes hold
but squeezes too hard
and desire mimics the body
where it lives.

"the kid could be something"
resolute and pensive
an undecided saint;
God says they're welcome
but faith is a ticket
and face paint doesn't make
a true fan.

I'm here
behind bars that I made
with the tools I was given.
am I grown?
am I groaning? too much?
does it matter? to me?

y'all want a coke?

What's your verbal profile? according to this test, I speak 69% Dixie. (that's "just under the Mason-Dixon Line," in case you were wondering.)

mobocracy?

not to beat a dead horse, but these news items seem to pertain to the last post...
from the Washington Post (3/21/06)

WORLD IN BRIEF
MOSCOW -- Russia accused the United States of trying to enforce its vision of democracy on others, angrily rejecting President Bush's criticism last week in a National Security Strategy report that the Kremlin has rolled back freedoms. The Foreign Ministry criticized what it called an "increasing emphasis on ideology" in the U.S. security strategy and indicated that Moscow would not accept lectures from Washington. "No one has . . . a monopoly on interpreting what democracy is," it said.

ok, so there are fewer and fewer people that would argue that Russia is a functional democracy, but still, an interesting quote.

This article from from the Times of London (3/20/06) may be a better illustration

Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
By Tim Albone of The Times in Kabul

An Afghan who has renounced his Islamic faith for Christianity faces the death penalty under Afghan law in a throwback to the brutal Taleban regime.

Abdul Rahman, 41, is being prosecuted for an "attack on Islam", for which the punishment under Afghanistan's draft constitution, is death by hanging.

The charge comes as Britain prepares to send 3,300 nominally Christian paratroopers to stabilise the troubled south of the country.
Mr Rahman converted to Christianity over 14 years ago, but his situation was bought to the attention of the authorities after he tried to gain custody of his daughters who had been living with their grandparents. His parents then denounced him as a convert and on arrest he was found to be carrying a Bible.

"The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.

"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.

If Judge Zada, who is head of the Primary Court, passes the death penalty under Afghan law, Mr Rahman still has two avenues of appeal, the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. The death penalty then has to be ratified by President Hamid Karzai.

The first sitting of Mr Rahman’s case was recently held and Judge Zada said a verdict will be reached within two months. The case is being viewed as a test of religious freedom in post-Taleban Afghanistan.

"It’s a case of religious freedom. It’s a real challenge for the the judiciary system here and highlights the problems between Sharia (Islamic) and statutory law," said a western human rights expert in Kabul.

"The constitution says Islam is the the religion of Afghanistan, yet it also mentions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 specifically forbids this kind of recourse. It really highlights the problem the judiciary system faces."

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, has said he would drop charges if Mr Rahman converted back to Islam but that he had so far refused to do so.

"He would be forgiven if he changed back, but he said he was a Christian and would always remain one. We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty," said Mr Wasi.

Repeated request for an interview with Mr Rahman were rejected by prison officials who said the Justice Ministry had threatened to sack them if an interview was granted.

One of his cell mates Sayad Miakhel, 30, told The Times: "He is standing by his words he will not become a Muslim again, he has been a Christian for over 14 years. It is what he believes in."

"His father complained to authorities after he said he wanted to take his daughters abroad. He is an intelligent man and his faith belongs to him."

Mr Miakhel said the conditions in prison were basic with 50 men to a cell made for 15. "We can only shower once a month. The food here is very basic, every few days we will have some meat."

"Most prisoners have food bought to them by there families, none of Abdul’s family have been to visit, I am not sure how he is eating. He seems depressed, he keeps looking up to the sky, to God," said Mr Miakhel

Khalylullah Safi, 31, another cellmate, said: "We know in England you can choose your religion but in Afghanistan it is different. I have to be careful what I say as I am a prisoner."

In 2001 only months before US-led forces over threw the Taleban regime eight western aid workers were arrested for allegedly preaching Christianity, they were later released unharmed.

Let's Make Some Noise

I'm sure y'all have heard about the Mohammed cartoon controversy that has caused violence or mass protest around the Muslim world. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (man, I really want to change my middle name -- Michael is so un-onomatopoeic!) wrote a piece in the International Herald Tribune last Friday on the subject. ( full article here)

an excerpt:

Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an act of senseless brinkmanship. It is also a disservice to democracy. It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy, it is permissible to offend Islam.

This message damages efforts to prove that democracy and Islam go together. The average Muslim who prays five times a day needs to be convinced that the democracy he is embracing, and is expected to defend, also protects and respects Islam's sacred symbols. Otherwise, democracy will not be of much interest to him.

My first thought when I read this was that the prez doesn't know what he's talking about. It is permissible in democracy to offend the Muslim community or anybody else -- that's one thing that "freedom of speech" allows. So, maybe this proves that Islam and democracy don't mix well....

Upon further review, however, I decided that maybe he's not so far off the mark. After all, we in the Western world, for good or bad, also have our unoffendable groups -- gays, blacks, fat people, etc., etc. Look at John Rocker, the baseball pitcher. He got fined, suspended and ordered into psychological testing for the comments made in this Sports Illustrated article. Even after he came back, the stigma placed on him helped turn a young All-star caliber pitcher into a washout.

More recently, there's the preacher in Sweden who got convicted of violating hate crime laws for calling homosexuality a "cancerous tumor" on society during a sermon at his church. He was sentenced to a month in prison. (the conviction was overturned on appeal, and the Swedish Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appeals court.)

Meanwhile, it seems like its perfectly fine or even expected to trash some groups --mainstream religions, "rednecks", people with "unacceptable" radical ideas, tall people :), etc. Last year, I went to a special exhibit at the International Spy Museum (which I highly recommend) about terrorism in the U.S. One section covered the Ku Klux Klan -- from its beginning through its heyday to its current state. These days it is pretty weak, but it still holds rallies and apparently uses non-violent means to promote its ideas. At the end of that section, a computer survey questioned people about their views of the KKK and freedom of speech. The survey results showed that almost everyone believed strongly in freedom of speech, but I was a little surprised to see that more than 80 percent of the survey-takers would outlaw white supremacist groups, even those that are non-violent. Now, I'm no fan of the KKK, but should they be criminalized for their ideas? Does everyone have a right to free speech and thought?

In Western democratic practice, it seems like the ones who are truly protected are the ones who scream the loudest (or get one of the "professionally offended" to scream for them). If that's the case, maybe these violent Muslim protesters have the right idea after all....

What do you think?