Sierra Viewpoints

Islam, A Religion of Peace?

2015-03-22T21:05:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, a friend posted an article about one of the recent Islamist terrorist attacks. I commented, "Yet another example of that peaceful religion", which was met with some pretty vehement comments that these attacks had "nothing to do with religion." To be honest, I'm not really sure how anyone who is really aware of what's happening in the world today can say this terrorism had "nothing to do with religion", especially when they're doing things like shouting "Mohammed is avenged!" right after murdering people.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that there's a pretty strong connection between Islam and the majority of terrorism happening today. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, ISIS (aka Islamic State os ISIL), Al-Shabaab, etc. are all, in their own express way, trying to progress the purpose of Islam. So, how is this unrelated to religion?

I have been mulling over these ideas for a few weeks, so I was extremely interested to read an essay entitled "Why Islam Needs a Reformation" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Saturday's edition of the Wall Street Journal. Near the very beginning of her essay, she wrote:

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims. In 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims. By far the most numerous victims of Muslim violence—including executions and lynchings not captured in these statistics—are Muslims themselves.

Not all of this violence is explicitly motivated by religion, but a great deal of it is. I believe that it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

What those with their heads in the sand are not wanting to face up to, is not just that violence is expressly called to within Islam, these various organizations also see themselves as bringing in the end of the world and are on a mission to ensure that Islam has taken over the entire world and nothing, NOTHING, is going to get in their way. What's more, this is nothing new:

The governments of the world should know that . . . Islam will be victorious in all the countries of the world, and Islam and the teaching of the Qur'an will prevail all over the world.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, January 1979

Ms. Ali goes on to suggest that the only way to change things is "to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts."

However, is that realistic, when many of these Islamic extremist organizations are murdering their fellow Muslims because they're not Muslim enough?? These groups will stop at nothing to further their cause, because they believe it is the ultimate cause, a cause worth dying for and they are not going to be pressured by other Muslim groups into changing their beliefs, or actions.

What amazes me even more, is the number of teenage boys and girls leaving comfortable Western lives to join these radical groups. I'm aware that they are being actively recruited in many cases but I'm convinced that the main reason many are leaving to join these groups is simply the fact it gives them a cause to fight for, a hope to live and die for, and something greater than themselves and the shallow existence of much of western life today . . . and that is incredibly sad and terrifying, and a horrific indictment of the failure of organized religion in the west to meet the needs of today's young people, not to mention the failure of society at large.

Until and unless the Christian church rises up, preaches the full, unadulterated truth, and God's power is made fully manifest, I fear this situation is just going to go from bad to worse . . . and it's pretty horrific already!

California's Worst Drought Ever

2015-03-19T22:37:00.001-07:00

Houseboats on Lake Oroville, in Northern California

Gov. Jerry Brown and a bipartisan group from the state legislature have just announced $1 billion in funding to provide relief against the worst drought in California history, as well as attempting to prevent it reoccurring, once this drought is over.

NASA also recently indicated that California has only about a year's worth of water left. As such, strict new measures are being introduced. For example, lawn and landscape watering will be limited to two days per week.

Two days per week?? Why allow it at all? Last year there were some communities in California that had no water at all in their faucets and this year is going to be even worse. Just last week I drove past a house in Rocklin that had the lawn sprinklers on, only a day after it had rained!

I was shocked not long ago when visiting Lake Tahoe to see the lake considerably lower than the end of the jetty, which is normally well over the lake. Camp Far West reservoir has also just about disappeared, as has much of Folsom Lake, and Lake Oroville.

People, if we don't cut our water usage down to an absolute minimum, we are going to run out of water completely, or, at best, it will be strictly rationed. As someone who has a well rather than city water, I'm also concerned our own well will run dry.

Come on California, we cannot affort to waste a single drop.

Obama and Marijuana

2015-03-12T15:41:00.000-07:00

During a series of YouTube interviews Thursday, President Obama demonstrated a remarkably laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana legalization experiments in the states. And he signaled strongly that the Obama administration wouldn't be taking to the hustings to try to beat back legalization efforts, as previous administrations had been wont to do.

"What you're seeing now is Colorado, Washington through state referenda, they're experimenting with legal marijuana," the president said in response to a question from YouTube host Hank Green. "The position of my administration has been that we still have federal laws that classify marijuana as an illegal substance, but we're not going to spend a lot of resources trying to turn back decisions that have been made at the state level on this issue. My suspicion is that you're gonna see other states start looking at this."

“How can state and local jurisdictions continue to make something legal that is patently illegal under federal law?”

That’s a hugely important question and Don Campbell writing at USA Today takes this point logically further – and I’m very thankful he did. He writes this,

“In December, Congress approved and President Obama signed a spending bill that defunds federal prosecution of medical marijuana sales, yet a U.S. attorney in Oakland continues a campaign to shut down California’s largest medical marijuana dispensary.

“Obama [according to Campbell] has not only instructed the Justice Department to not interfere with state laws legalizing marijuana, he also has even encouraged more states to ‘experiment’ with such laws. So what happens if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and he or she orders a new attorney general to stamp out marijuana wherever it is found?”

That’s an interesting political question, but there’s a huge constitutional question here. The President took the oath of office swearing to uphold the laws of the land. Those laws, at present, include – undeniably – a very clear criminalization of the use, possession, or sale of marijuana at any quantity, for any reason. And yet the President of the United States has not only ordered federal prosecutors not to prosecute cases in those states that have legalized marijuana, but he has also openly invited governors of other states to experiment with their own laws.

How is it possible that a President of the United States, sworn to uphold the laws of the nation, can encourage the governors of the respective states to experiment with laws that violate the law that he has taken an oath to uphold? That’s the kind of question we’re asking in this very strange age. Campbell, by the way, doesn’t seem to be at all opposed to legalizing marijuana, he just thinks the law needs to be clarified and he’s calling upon the Supreme Court to make the clarification. But he also raises a point in his column that deserves some very close worldview scrutiny. He writes, and I quote,

“Doesn’t it just make sense, really, to control and profit from transactions that will otherwise be engaged in illegally by those who have a yearning for pot?”

That’s a rather convoluted sentence but he says, ‘shouldn’t the states basically take tax money and legalize what people are going to do anyway, even if it illegal, simply because they yearn for pot?’ Now, that’s one of those very interesting questions that simply have to be resoundingly answered from a Christian worldview in this way. Every single society decides to sanction, to make it illegal, even to criminalize, some things that other people want to do. You can’t simply make the argument that because people want to do it, and maybe even make the argument that inevitable they are going to do it, and then say that you ought to legalize it, tax it, and profit by it. Of course, even those who are making the argument to legalize marijuana don’t want to take the argument that far. But the point is they want to take the argument as far as the legalization of marijuana – for now. We simply have to ask the question, how long is ‘for now’?

Albert Mohler: The Briefing Podcast

2015-03-12T15:26:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I came across Albert Mohler's podcast, "The Briefing", which is his personal look into current world events from a Christian worldview.

I find the podcast fascinating and look forward to listening to it each morning as I drive to work. However, in the months of listening to this podcast, it is very clear that today's events are not good news. The rise in Islamic terrorism, the continuing denial of rights of Christians within the USA, the onslaught of liberalism . . . the list goes on.

If you really want to get a grasp of what's happening in today's world, especially if you live in the USA, I thoroughly recommend this podcast.

Hillary Clinton and Emailgate

2015-03-12T14:51:00.002-07:00

Among all the hype and brouhaha surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State, one particular aspect really blew me away.

I was listening to a news story about Hillary on the BBC’s Global News podcast, which included a short excerpt of Hillary speaking. She explained that she used her personal account for convenience because she didn’t want to have to carry around a 2nd phone so that she could use a government email account.

Is she not aware that you can access multiple email accounts on a smartphone? Is there no-one in the higher echelons of the Federal government that uses 2 email accounts on a single phone?

Apparently, Hillary was using a Blackberry rather than an iPhone or an Android smartphone, so I thought I should just double check, just in case Blackberry's can only handle a single email account. But, NO! You can also access multiple email accounts on a Blackberry. So, come on Hillary and get with the times! Perhaps I should become technical advisor to Federal government . . . I just hope they now use Android phones!

The Practical Pioneer

2013-10-22T20:24:00.000-07:00

The Practical Pioneer Home Page

My wife has just launched her new website and blog, entitled The Practical Pioneer, subtitled, "Building a Life out of Whatever's Lying Around."

It covers a broad range of subjects, including frugal living, family life & parenting, food & drink, health, gardening, etc..

The Cat's Out of the Bag: Tiger Woods and the Right to Privacy

2009-12-03T11:43:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, on his web site, Tiger Woods' admitted to "transgressions" and wrote "I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves." He was also the highest-paid professional sportsman in 2008, with an income of approximately $110 million, from tournament earnings and various product endorsements, including Nike, AT&T, and Gillette. Though he has not formally admitted to an affair (or affairs), his clean cut image has certainly been well and truly tarnished. However, it's something else that he wrote that I think is of greater interest.

I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone . . . Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means . . . no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy . . . the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. (My emphasis).

I was drawn to his phrase "Personal sins should not require press releases." I agree, up to a point. He certainly should not be required to broadcast to the whole world the intimate details of his private life and failings. However, as a man who has made his millions by choosing a very public career and lifestyle, he also cannot expect to have the same degree of privacy as you or I can. Indeed, the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of media to disclose newsworthy items to the public that are of legitimate public interest. In fact, the relevant legal issue is whether the disclosure of the "private" fact is highly offensive to a reasonable person and whether it lacks legitimate public interest. Also, determining "legitimate public interest", at least in part, rests on the extent to which the person concerned, as a result of being famous or some other public status, has a reduced expectation of privacy.

So, if you were on a jury determining whether the press had invaded Tiger Woods' privacy by publishing all of its various reports, true or otherwise, would you determine that they have been guilty of invading his privacy or not? Is the media serving a legitimate public interest by publishing details of his affairs? Indeed, should a famous sportsman have any less right to privacy than any other American?

This is a difficult legal area and one that is, I think, heightened even more in today's cyberworld where information crosses the globe in a second and public information is more public than it has ever been.

As for Tiger, despite his clean cut image, his soiled cat is well and truly out of the bag and nothing he can do can ever put it back.

Susan's On The Boyle

2009-12-03T02:39:00.003-08:00

Susan Boyle's first album has just become the fastest selling debut album in UK chart history, selling 410,000 copies in the first week and is the second fastest selling debut album in US chart history, having sold 701,000 copies in the USA. Not only is her album second only to Snoop Dogg's debut (which occurred 16 years ago), it is, therefore, the fastest selling debut album by a female artist ever in the USA and the UK. She has sold more in the first week than the debuts by Kelly Clarkson (the first American Idol winner) and more than Leona Lewis, who was by far the most successful UK music reality TV winner. So why is Susan Boyle's album selling so well?

I guess that's the million dollar question. Certainly, it was a brilliant choice of debut single for her to sing the Rolling Stones' "Wild Horses", which was also arranged superbly and its lyrics seem to be perfect for Miss Boyle. However, I suspect the reason she has easily outsold every other singer currently in the charts is simply the fact that she is the epitome of everyone' dream—well, perhaps not everyone's but certainly many people's. Leona Lewis and Kelly Clarkson, for example, are young, attractive with incredible vocal abilities and had everything going for them. Susan Boyle, on the other hand, is middle-aged, frumpy and has learning difficulties (something still apparent when interviewed after her recent performance of Wild Horses on The X Factor). If a frumpy middle-aged woman from a remote Scottish village can suddenly achieve her dreams, then surely the rest of us can too.

Of course, the fact Susan Boyle can really sing helps. However, she's no Leona Lewis or Kelly Clarkson vocally but she is the embodiment of the belief that your dreams really can true. As she sung so famously, she dreamed a dream in days gone by, her dreams have come true and perhaps, just perhaps, ours can too.

Good for you Susan.

The UK Supreme Court's First Major Case

2009-11-25T13:52:00.003-08:00

Today the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided its first major case, Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc and others (Appellants). In this case, the issue before the Supreme Court was "whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts . . . can be challenged by the respondent the Office of Fair Trading . . . as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the customers."

In other words, can the OFT legally determine that penalty charges imposed by banks for unauthorised overdrafts are unfair and must be returned. The Supreme Court overruled the rulings of the lower appelate courts, holding that this was beyond the power of the OFT, a big blow for the people of Britain!

For further details, see the BBC News story.

It's also been interesting to see how the operation of the UK Supreme Court compares to that of the USA. In many ways the UK court seems less formal but there are certainly many similarities and I think it's a good thing for the UK with regard to clarifying the law and having a more visible court of final appeal.

What Is It With Mariah Carey

2009-11-24T02:33:00.000-08:00

Just who does Mariah Carey think she is? She is so full of herself that she thinks she can make the most ridiculous of demands and every seems to just fawn over her all the time. She is so not all she thinks she is.

When she recently opened a new shopping mall in London, she had demanded 20 white kittens and 100 white doves, but was turned down. There are several other examples of her ridiculous demands. She needs to get real and someone close to her needs to tell her that she's just a singer and not queen of the universe.

When she appeared on X-Factor this weekend, she wasn't even singing live. She certainly has a beautiful voice but has ruined it with her choice of songs and her diva lifestyle. Give me Susan Boyle and day!