Post 12: Middle East Teacher

So here is the story: A British lady was teaching English to some little kids over in Sudan. The class had a teddy bear which was kind of the classes mascot. So, because the class is a bunch of little children and to make it fun, the teacher decided to have the class take a vote on what to name the bear. Sounds innocent, right? Apparently not. Because Mohammad is a really common name for Muslims, the bear was named after a little boy in the class named Mohammad. Now, considering the religion of this region, it would be reasonable to suggest that they might be offended...

In the United States, if parents are offended they go to the school board. In Sudan for this teachers case, if parents are offended, they go to the authorities, apparently, and demand that the teacher be executed. This is exactly what happened. Over a TEDDY BEAR being named Mohammad they demanded that the teacher be executed. Now, I can understand some being offended because Mohammad is something like the most honored prophet in their religion. This is just taking it to a whole new level though.

The teacher WAS found guilty and sentenced not to time in jail, but to be executed. Since then the sentencing has changed. Some officials first thought that it would be appropriate to take the teacher and give her 40 lashes to the back. I do not know what you readers are thinking by now, but I see 40 lashes as just a more painful death sentence. If you actually live though that then your just suffering for a really long time.

Now the sentence has been reduced to 15 days in jail and to exile the teacher from the country. This is still pretty rough but it sure beats having to take 40 lashes to the back. So, thats the story and just think its ridiculous. Now do not misunderstand what I am about to say and I am not trying to generalize here...but this is an example of when extremists such as the people in Sudan take religion to a whole new level. In today's modern world where most of the world is NOT like this, this is prime example of when they two cultures clash and it seems to never work.

So let me know what you think. Thanks.

Post 11: Pakistan Aid

I recently have heard others talking about this and on the news. Apparently the United States gives Pakistan 150 million dollars a month to "aid" them on the war against terrorism. So, considering the years that this aid has been going on we have given the Pakistan a ton of money. I personally think this is totally wrong.

What have they done to aid us or help us in the fight? They lost Osama when they were sent in to get him so I guess the big question is "what do they have to show for all the money that we have invested in them." I see nothing and this upsets me. Especially with all the controversy surrounding President Musharraf of Pakistan, I am really just sick of Pakistan.

They are made out to be an ally of the United States and of the war on terror, but has their help been significant and are they really that trustworthy. I think not. I see Musharraf as someone that is holding out his hand for money while saying that he will aid us in all the ways he can, but he is completely insincere and really just focused on using the money to benefit his own country.

The United States uses Pakistan as a place for us to mark off as non-threatening but I really think that they are just as untrustworthy as many other countries in today’s world.

Post 10: Musharraf

I recently read an article that discussed the issues regarding the President of Pakistan, Musharraf and how he declared the country in a state of emergency so he could remain in power. Many believe, as the author of the article suggests, that even though other countries can tell Musharraf that they are not pleased with his actions, there is really nothing that anyone can due. This is all despite the uproar from many Pakistan civilians who are upset with Musharraf’s actions.I am, personally, always trying to keep myself up to date with what is happening in the world, especially in the Middle East.

The whole conflict with Musharraf is disturbing. Pakistan, a country that the United States says it can depend on, is now facing leadership issues. This is one reason that I found this article so interesting and chose to use it. One thing that I learned was that not only are other countries upset with Musharraf, but many of his own people are absolutely furious with him. This article applies to me in a few ways. With all the problems in the Middle East as it is, Musharraf is just causing problems that are simply unneeded and really expose him for being corrupt. Again and again, his people and other countries are telling him that he should not have seized power by claiming the emergency. I really think that this was just a way for him to hold on to his power because he might be afraid that the recount for the election that Pakistan just held might rule against him. This kind of thing just bothers me cause the last thing we need is for another leader to misuse power in the Middle East.

Again, I just want to see you all have to say about this. What do you think he should do or do you actually think he had legitimate reasons for announcing the state of emergency.

Post 9: Abortion is not a Religious Issue?

Post 9:
I recently read an article in the Los Angeles times and the author of the editorial claimed that abortion was not a religious issue. The article discussed the position that using religion as defense against abortion is not a legitimate argument. It points out that that people use the argument that abortion is not legitimate because those people believe that it is murder. This article uses the argument that it cannot be murder because the child is not developed and because it is the mother that makes the decision to stop the development of the baby. The writer also points out that abortion is not a religious issue because the Catholic Church has not treated abortion as murder in the past centuries.

One reason that I chose to write about this article was because I attend a Catholic school and I have always been told that abortion is murder. I also found this article interesting because the title was the exact opposite of what I had been taught in the past. I learned from this article a few things. One thing that I learned was that only 10 percent of evangelicals allow for abortion in case of rape. The topic applies to me because, because I go to a Catholic school and as I mentioned, abortion is often a topic that is discussed. It is really interesting to find an editorial which takes a completely different view than what I am used to because I really have never heard the argument that abortion is not a relgious issue. I have heard people debating using different arguments, but not simply say that the issue is "this way" because your whole defense makes no sense.

So I really just want to know what you all think of the position that abortion is by no means a religious issue. Abortion is one of those topics with tons of controversie and those who do claim that abortion is murder often take a religious defense. So, the author is basically saying that all those arguments are false simply because it is not a religious issue.

Post 8: Fred Thomposn

Fred Thompson is one candidate that is running for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. I recently read an article about him in the L.A. times that discussed him and his background. The article goes through the stories and process when he was the Assistant U.S. Attorney. He joined up to fight crime when he was only 27 years old. Lately, as he campaigns for the 2008 election, he has portrayed himself as a crime fighter and as an individual who is generally tough on crime. In reality many of his cases were more minor, but during that career, he had 27 moon shine cases.

I am always interested as to what is going on as far as the presidential candidates go. Thus, Fred Thompson has stuck out because he really does have different credentials than many of the other candidates do. So, I have been trying to find out, based on this article, rather or not these credentials really mean anything. He was an actor on Law and Order and also an Assistant U.S. Attorney. We all know that him being an actor means nothing, but has his experiences as a U.S. Attorney really helped? As mentioned earlier, he was one for quite awhile and he had many cases. Thus, many see this as strong credentials and as stated in the article:

"Thompson also returned to politics. He spent much of the rest of the year working for the reelection of U.S. Sen. Howard Baker Jr...Thompson was a political loyalist and friend. And he had earned an important credential: He had been a prosecutor."

So, based on the information I have given, the majority does feel that he is ready to lead this country. I personally like him, but despite the amount of news I watch or amount of talk radio I listen to, I am having trouble distinguishing where he stands on certain issues. In the end, it is impressive that he has gained so much support since entering the race. Based on the amount of people that I personally know that support him, I assume that he knows what he is talking about. It is just that when I compare him to, lets say, Giuliani, who has more experience, I realize that it really has been awhile since Thompson actually worked for the government.

It will be interesting to watch the race and see if Thompson can pull out on top and that if he will ever be questioned about his experience. I remember reading somewhere that when he was asked some questions about law, his responses were not correct. When comparing him to other candidates though, he really did have a good career in politics and would make a good leader.