A tangled web of race and religion

Article by: Chun Han Wong

Nov. 29 2011

Wall Street Journal

Wong describes the problems in Singapore consisting of facebook harassment toward the population of Muslims residing there. Singapore has laws forbidding hostility toward any ethnic group, and also outlaws fostering discontent among citizens.

Clearly, posting a picture of Muslim school children with the caption "Bus Filled with young terrorist trainees" goes against that law (yes, that actually happened).

The statement made by the Ministry of Home Affairs quoted in the article basically sums up my thoughts on this as well. The gist of that statement was: just because you have the right to freedom of speech, that does not allow you to insult other races, religions or ethnicities. This ideology also applies to a lot of other scenarios all over the world...think about all the politicians who are constantly insulting the perspectives and beliefs of people that are opposite their own (mormons, homosexuals, and of course American Muslims). Are they proving anything besides their ignorance, rudeness and inability to tolerate differences? People should consider the rule we all learn in kindergarten before speaking/posting/blogging: If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all.

Oh boy... Al-Qaeda on bin Laden.

I really have been trying to separate Al-Qaeda from Islam/Muslims in my head ever since this class started. It hasn't been so hard to do, because as I've mentioned before, I'm pretty ignorant about world politics and world issues and basically anything outside of this Gustavus bubble.

Anyway, this story, seen on the website USA Today as a blog post (written by 'The Associated Press') was a brief description of the Video that Al-Qaeda's new leader made, reflecting on what kind of a person bin Laden was. I can't help but get so fired up that he refers to bin Laden being so proud of the 19 men who died in the 9/11 attack all in the name of Allah (jihad=holy war). Did we not just learn that the Muslim faith is accepting of other religious beliefs? (read our assignment for tomorrow, 'Those who reject the faith' on the last page)

This is the main problem and the main reason why Muslims and Islam in general have such a negative connotation in America. I'm stating the obvious, I know. But if there was something POSITIVE in the news about Muslims or if people would attend ONE lecture that talked about how Al-Qaeda is not solely awful because they happen to be Muslims...I think that could do a lot of good for open-minded people. When only negative things are said, it's hard to think any other way.

The 'Amma' version of bank loans

Washing Post, Social Entrepreneurship and the next generation of giving
By Melissa Steffan, November 8th 2011


All around the world (including the USA), governments are struggling to find means to support small business owners and others who might need a loan. Kiva.org, developed by Premal Shah, was created to allow people with a little extra money (as low as $25) lend it to someone in a 3rd world country, similar to how a bank would do, so he/she could start a business. It runs on an internet system similar to paypals, and just as a bank would, the loaner receives a small amount of interest once the business is successful.

I love this! I think it is such a great way to give and support other people, in a much more productive way than simply just giving a one time donation of money or food. Although those gifts are extremely helpful in most cases, this system allows another member of society to become productive and be able to support himself/herself eventually! It reminds me of Amma and her thoughts on giving to charity is the problem solver of the world. This is an example of a philanthropic act, but also a social revolution...people no longer need to solely rely on their government to start a new endeavor.

Definitely not Confucius.

By Marie Jego, October 31, 2011

This article is talking about how life in Chechyna is getting 'better' after decades of blood wars. Ramzon Kadyrov is now in charge, and following in his 'father-like' Putin's footsteps. While the city LOOKS like it would be a great place to live (newly built skyscrapers, sushi restaurants, etc..), the latter half of the article is filled with citizens personal stories about the fear that they constantly live with that at any time, their leader could end their lives.

Jego, the author, didn't have to compare this style of leadership to any other style to see how violent Kadyrov is, but since we just read a lot of Confuvius' texts that state the exact OPPOSITE type of leadership, I couldn't help but compare them. The citizens of Chechyna openly admit to living in fear of their ruler. Kadyrov purposely has his 'thugs' (seriously, his men are referred to as thugs.) leak videos of them violently punishing and torturing citizens who dared to admit they didn't support Kadyrov in power. If you think about the qualities that make a 'superior man' and a superior ruler, it is being such a good person that people don't even realize you are directing them to live a certain way because they don't have anything to complain about.

Obviously it would be impossible to suddenly implement this type of Confucious leadership into a community but Kadyrov is on the completely opposite side of this spectrum. I know there are plenty of countries with awful and mean leaders, but I just came across this article and it really seems so idiotic to me that people like this still exist.

Camping announces again: the world is going to end Oct. 21

NPR Media Player (this podcast)
Reporter: Barbara Hagerty
October 18th 2011

Well, prepare for destruction AGAIN everyone. Harold Camping, a prophet of the doomsday and head of Family Radio has recrunched the numbers and it turns out he was about 5 months off in his last prediction. He also might have been wrong about the world ending in destruction, stating his new conviction with a few 'probably...''s thrown in there.
"Probably there will be no pain suffered by anyone because of their rebellion against God. Unbelievers might just fall asleep and never wake up." -Camping

Hagerty, the reporter, had the same attitude I do: skepticism. To me this seems like a desperate, embarrassing ploy to convert more people to Christianity. Totally legal, yes, but are we really reverting to the SCARE factor to have people follow a religion? Isn't the belief in a God supposed to rely on faith, not fear?
I'm not sure why but this podcast made me consider that although I find Hinduism and Buddhism to be a little different than my daily life and quite repressing toward females, I also can't think of a single instance when anyone has tried to shove either of those religions down someone else's throat. It's a nice 'take it or leave it' approach, with no threatening consequences other than you might be reborn again as a goat or something, but have another opportunity to create better karma for yourself.

Mormons not Christians?

How do Mormons not answer Christian claims? (Article)
By Michael Otterson
October 12th 2011

The author wrote this article from his own perspective as a Latter -Day Saint church member. He was told by a very close friend 'you're not a Christian because of X,Y,andZ beliefs, or lack of those beliefs'. According to him, Mormons follow Christian ideas but of course have their own additional beliefs as well. The author writes with a very open-minded voice, not insulting other religions but simply stating the fact that 'yes, it's different than what some people know to be Christianity but come talk to us if you would like to know the similarities as well'.

This article made me think of how both Hinduism and Buddhism have so many different branches, and yet I consider them all to be properly grouped together under the same 'umbrella' naming of those main religions. For example, do people that follow the Mahayana school of though claim that the Theravada followers are 'not Buddhists!'? That is an honest question because I have never had the opportunity to ask someone, but I am going to assume not. I would think that generally people would qualify someone as a Hindu/Buddhist if they were following the same basic principles. This too SHOULD be the case for Christianity, in my opinion. I think people need to chill out, keep religion bashing OUT of their political speeches (look at this article for a good example of what I mean) and just let people be!

Where does church end and state begin?

By Jacques Berlinerblau

10/05/2011
The Washington Post On Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html

This article is written with a big serving of sarcasm, mostly directed toward US political figures who have tried to use their religion as a reason for doing something some find unconstitutional. It is very entertaining, and also intriguing if you look at it with an open mind.

The US is supposed to have (and I would say a majority of the time, does) a separation of Church and State. So I can see how some people get quite frustrated when political figure heads, voted into power by the American public, are making decisions based off their religious values and NOT based off the constitution. People are not voted into power because of their religion. Therefore, when someone takes power, they should not get to pick and choose which laws to pass/duties to follow based off their own beliefs. Berlinerblau does a good job giving a few examples of past experiences when people have tried to do something because of their faith, and normally these people have been told "no, no, I don't care that your faith says otherwise..your job says do this" so it's nice to know the separation is being upheld.

This just made me think of how Hinduism and Buddhism are so much more than religions, they are lifestyles, that there is no way church and state could ever be separated. I think this might make laws/rules/regulations/etc a lot easier to decide on but I can't decide if it's 'fair' or if I would like it. Probably not since I don't really have any certain religion I adhere to.

It's also interesting to think about how the first amendment protects against freedom of speech, but by requiring political figures to not base any decisions off their religion, is that somehow going against that amendment too? I think it's fair to say that religion influences a lot of people's morals and values and opinions...so are we saying that political figures need to base their morals, values, etc off of somewhere else? How could a person even control for that since those things are typically ingrained in a person by the time they are college-aged?