Sean1427

Reading through this thread brought back lots of memories. My mother was born in the church, and her ancestors go back to the very early days of the church. My father was not born in the church. Ironically, both my parents' ancestors were on both sides of the conflict in Nauvoo. I have an ancestor whose name was given him in a blessing by Joseph Smith, and that name given was that of one of Joseph's late brother's. I have an ancestor on my father's side who was named after one of the IL militia leaders who rallied the troops against the Mormons in Nauvoo. Years later my parents married and had four sons, all of whom served missions. My father, even though he was not a member, was always very supportive of my mother. She paid tithing on money he earned, and he never complained. Each time one of us was born, my mother, who was somewhat inactive in the early years, took us to the local unit to be blessed, and my father supported her. When we were baptized, he never complained. He supported my older brother on a mission, without any help from the church. He also donated his skills, time, and labor to building the first chapel in my home town. He did the same for our ward's scout house. He also taught us the importance of remaing true to the covenants we had made. Once my younger brother wasn't getting ready to go to church with Mom and the rest of us, except for Dad. Dad went in to see what was wrong and my brother said he wasn't going to church. My brother then said that since my father never went to church, he didn't have to go. But my father wisely told him that my father didn't go because he hadn't made a covenant with the Lord to do so, but that my brother had and that because he had, he should get up, get ready and go to church to support the church and his mother and be true to his covenant. My father did all this as a non-member. As the years passed and the church became more important to my mother, she began to want to see my father come into the church as well. Such wasn't going to be easy since some of the members weren't doing much to help out. (I have to laugh when I remember that our home teacher once told my father that because he smoked he was a servant of the devil.) But my mother never pressured him and never gave up hope that perhaps, some day, things might change. But having the missionaries teach my father the lessons wasn't enough since he knew more about the the basic doctrines, teachings, principles and history of the church than the poor elders did. So my mother settled for just having them come to dinner every Monday. Missionaries came and went, but the time came when one missionary came that somehow "clicked" with my father and that missionary was the one who baptized my father. My father once told us sons that we had a great responsibility since he and us were the only ones among all his ancestors that were members of the church, and that generations of family members now dead depended on us. Before I went on my mission, my father and I received our patriarchal blessings together. None of us ever really read my father's blessing until he lie dying several years later. What we read was interesting. The first paragraph sounds like that of those who've been born in the church when it said that my father had been faithful in the pre-existence. But then it added something I'd not seen or heard of before. It said that he had chosen to use his agency to be born into a non-member family, and that he had made a convenant with his Father in Heaven that when the day came that he was baptized, he would take the gospel message to those of his family who were not members. Never before had I imagined faithful individuals who used their agency in the pre-existence to be born outside the church as a mission. In the church we are counseled to marry members. But I'm grateful that my mother did becuase I'm grateful for what both sides of my heritage have taught me. And if my mother hadn't married out, one wonders when and where my father would have joined, and how his family would have ever heard the gospel message. Your situation and that of my father's reminds me of the words of Elder Orson F. Whitney: "[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish in and by themselves . . ." Remember, Joseph of Egypt married a non-member, who became the mother of two great nations (Ephraim and Mannaseh), whose members are as the sands of the sea. So do marriages between members and non-members work? From my own family experience, I would say they can and often do, and sometimes they work in ways we members can't even begin to imagine. And we need to remember that what was begun here in mortality doesn't end in mortality.

As an American who lives in the ME I agree with what Jenamarie shared about how many radical Muslims are illiterate and therefore don't know much about their own religion. However, I would also point out that while many Americans--Christian or otherwise--are basically literate, the sad reality is that most Americans don't read much anymore much less take time to do their own research. And just as many Muslims get their views of Islam, current events, or politics from their local imam, many Americans seem to get most of their views of Islam, Christianity, current events, or political views from TV, the movies, their favort talk radio host, or their particular religious leader. I remember a quote I saw once in a hall at BYU that asked, What advantage does a man who can read but doesn't have over the man who can't read. Sadly, for many in both East and West it's as though the printing press had never been invented. The fact that many of those rioting have never seen the movie reminds me how the Wyoming tourist bureau was flooded by Americans wanting to visit Brokeback Mountain after having seen the movie Brokeback Mountain. Evidently, they didn't realize that there was no Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming, where there aren't a lot of mountains to begin with. Nor had they looked at the credits, for if they had, they would have learned that the film was made in Canada, not the US. With respect to what the BBC show "Islam, The Untold Story" said of Mohammed, those of us who are LDS should remember the LDS First Presidency Message of 1978, which reads in part: "Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common mortal progenitors but also as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father. “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals . . . “Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come . . .” Hence, Mohammed, according to the First Presidency, did receive a portion of God's truth (i.e., inspiration) that helped serve to enlighten people and bring them to a higher level of understanding as individuals. What individual followers of a particular religion do with their religion is another matter. But as I reflect on how some Muslims seem to fail to live their religion, I also appreciate what C. S. Lewis had to say about Christians: If we were arrested for being Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict us? As for the rioting one sees throughout the Muslim world, let me share the following article which makes a number of very good points that we should at least consider as we try to make sense of what we see-- US media angrily marvels at the lack of Muslim gratitude NBC News, along with a leading US newspaper, insist that Egyptians should be grateful to the US for having 'freed' them By Glenn Greenwald, 14 September 2012 One prominent strain shaping American reaction to the protests in the Muslim world is bafflement, and even anger, that those Muslims are not more grateful to the US. After all, goes this thinking, the US bestowed them with the gifts of freedom and democracy – the very rights they are now exercising – so how could they possibly be anything other than thankful? Under this worldview, it is especially confounding that the US, their savior and freedom-provider, would be the target of their rage. On Wednesday, USA Today published an article with the headline "After attacks in Egypt and Libya, USA Today asks: Why?" The paper appeared to tell its readers that it was the US that freed the Egyptian people from tyranny: "Attacks in Libya that left four US diplomats dead – including Ambassador Christopher Stevens – and a mob invasion of the US Embassy in Cairo, in which the US flag was torn to shreds, have left many to wonder: How can people the USA helped free from murderous dictators treat it in such a way?" Did you know that the "USA helped free" Egyptians from their murderous dictator? On Thursday night, NBC News published a nine-minute report on Brian Williams' "Rock Center" program featuring its foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, reporting on the demonstrations in Cairo, which sounded exactly the same theme. Standing in front of protesting Egyptians in Tahrir Square, Engel informed viewers that this was all so very baffling because it was taking place "in Cairo, where the US turned its back on its old friend Hosni Mubarak", and then added: "It is somewhat ironic with American diplomats inside the embassy who helped to give these demonstrators, these protesters, a voice, and allowed them to actually carry out these anti-American clashes that we're seeing right now." That it was the US who freed Egyptians and "allowed them" the right to protest would undoubtedly come as a great surprise to many Egyptians. That is the case even beyond the decades of arming, funding and general support from the US for their hated dictator (to his credit, Engel including a snippet of an interview with Tariq Ramadan pointing out that the US long supported the region's dictators). Beyond the long-term US support for Mubarak, Egyptians would likely find it difficult to reconcile Engel's claim that the US freed them with the "made in USA" logos on the tear gas cannisters used against them by Mubarak's security forces; or with Hillary Clinton's touching 2009 declaration that "I really consider President and Mrs Mubarak to be friends of my family"; or with Obama's support for Mubarak up until the very last minute when his downfall became inevitable; or with the fact that the Obama administration plan was to engineer the ascension of the loathed, US-loyal torturer Omar Suleiman as Mubarak's replacement in the name of "stability". Given the history of the US in Egypt, both long-term and very recent, it takes an extraordinary degree of self-delusion and propaganda to depict Egyptian anger toward the US as "ironic" on the ground that it was the US who freed them and "allowed" them the right to protest. But that is precisely the theme being propagated by most US media outlets. Even in Libya, where it's certainly true that many Libyans are happy about the Nato intervention, this bafflement is misplaced. It's always the case that some portion of the populace of an invaded nation will be happy about even the most unjustified invasions: that the Kurds are thrilled by the Iraq war is a fact still cited by Iraq war advocates as proof of the war's justness and wisdom. But it's also the case that such invasions produce extreme anger, as well: among the families of those killed by the invading forces, or who suffer from the resulting lawlessness and instability. Combine that with the fact that it was repeatedly noted that US involvement in Libya meant that anti-US extremists, including al-Qaida, were being armed and empowered by the US, it is far from mystifying, as Secretary Clinton insisted, that some people in Libya are deeply hostile to the US and want to do it harm. In the same report, Engel also spent several moments explaining that the primary reason these Muslims have such animosity toward the US is because their heads have been filled for years with crazy conspiracy theories about how the US and Israel are responsible for their woes. These conspiracies, he said, were fed to them by their dictators to distract attention from their own corruption. Let's leave aside the irony of the American media decrying crazy "conspiracy theories" in other countries, when it is the US that attacked another country based on nonexistent weapons and fabricated secret alliances with al-Qaida. One should acknowledge that there is some truth to Engel's claim that the region's tyrants fueled citizen rage toward the US and Israel as a means of distracting from their own failings and corruption. But to act as though Muslim anger toward the US and Israel is primarily the by-product of crazy conspiracy theories is itself a crazy conspiracy theory. It's in the world of reality, not conspiracy, where the US and Israel have continuously brought extreme amounts of violence to the Muslim world, routinely killing their innocent men, women and children. Listening to Engel, one would never know about tiny little matters like the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, the almost five-decade long oppression of Palestinians, the widely hated, child-killing drone campaign, or the attack on Iraq. And it's in the world of reality, not conspiracy, where the US really has continuously interfered in their countries' governance by propping up and supporting their dictators. Intense Muslim animosity toward the US, including in Egypt, long pre-dates this film, and the reasons aren't hard to discern. That's precisely why the US supported tyranny in these countries for so long: to ensure that the citizens' views, so contrary to US policy, would be suppressed and rendered irrelevant. It doesn't take a propagandized populace to be angry at the US for such actions. It takes a propagandized populace to be shocked at that anger and to view it with bafflement and resentment on the ground that they should, instead, be grateful because we "freed" them. But to see why exactly such a propagandized populace exists in the US and has been led to believe such myth and conspiracies, simply read that USA Today article or watch the NBC News report on these protests as they convince Americans that gratitude, rather than resentment, should be the sentiment people in that region feel toward the US . SOURCE: The Guardian, UK

Sweetiepie, perhaps the following quote might shed some light on your questions. I have not yet found who the author actually was, but it was published in the Millenial Star, November 17, 1866. And while it's technically addressing heaven, I suspect it has some application to the Millenium and other kingdoms as well. "A Saint, who is one in deed and in truth, does not look for an immaterial heaven but he expects a heaven with lands, houses, cities, vegetation, rivers, and animals; with thrones, temples, palaces, kings, priests, and angels; with food, raiment, musical instruments, etc.; all of which are material. Indeed the Saints' heaven is a redeemed, glorified, celestial material creation, inhabited by glorified material beings, male and female, organized into families, embracing all the relationships of husbands and wives, parents and children, where sorrow, crying, pain, and death will be known no more. Or to speak still more definitely, this earth, when glorified, is the Saints' eternal heaven. On it they expect to live, with body parts, and holy passions; on it they expect to move and have their being; to eat, drink, converse, worship, sing, play on musical instruments, engage in joyful, innocent, social amusements, visit neighboring towns and neighboring worlds; ineed, matter and its qualities and properties are the only being or things with which they expect to associate. If they embrace the Father, they expect to embrace a glorified, immortal, spiritual, material Personage; if they embrace the Son of God, they embrace a spiritual Being of material flesh and bones, whose image is in the likeness of the Fathe; if they enjoy the society of the Holy Ghost, they expect to behold a glorious spiritual Personage, a material body of spirit; if they associate with the spirits of men and angels, they expect to find them material." True, the above is not scripture, but it is food for thought. As for the idea some have that "spirit" is immaterial, such a view contradicts the D&C which teaches that all spirit is matter--it's just that some spirit is more refined and pure than other spirit matter. Hence, what seems immaterial to us in our present state is certainly not immaterial to others in a different state of being.

J. REUBEN CLARK, Excerpts, 1947, US foreign policy NOTE: I've posted this at another thread, "We Were Right to Intervene." If you've read it there, just ignore it here. I'm simply posting for those following this thread but not that one. -- More “girth” for those who might be interested. But almost all the “girth” here comes from J. Reuben Clark, after whom BYU's law school was named. For those who don’t know who J. Reuben Clark was, I’ve provided a short background on him in the following paragraph before sharing his words. Clark was appointed assistant solicitor to the US State Department in 1906, which began his career in government. During WWI, he worked in the Attorney General’s office. In 1928, as Under Secretary of State, he wrote the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, which repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. He was US ambassador to Mexico from 1930-1933. In 1933, Clark was called to be a member of the LDS First Presidency to replace Charles W. Nibley. This call was unusual on two counts, one count being that previously counselors in the First Presidency had generally been selected from within the general authorities of the LDS church, but Clark had never even been a bishop or stake president. Until his death in 1961, Clark served in the presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George A. Smith, & David O. McKay. What follows after this paragraph was written by J. Reuben Clark in 1947. Please note that everything I quote comes from the same article. My inserts for clarification are in brackets.: “Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us. “It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path. “In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live. “Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace. “What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . . “. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . . “Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.” Interestingly, elsewhere in the same article Clark freely admitted to being an isolationist in terms of how US foreign policy was even then being used. He admitted to fully believing in “the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen”; that “American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes”; that “ America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century”; & that “moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations” but that “we [i.e., America as clearly seen in the context] now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.” These are his words, not mine. He also stated that he was not shaken in his “convictions or frightened by the assertion” that “the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are now in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, -- greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passon to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever.” Despite the technological advances, which would now include the internet, “we are just as we were . . We can and should mind our own business . . .” Again, Clark’s words above are from 1947, after the conclusion of WWII. It amazes me that he would write such just after the end of WWII at a time when Americans are patting themselves on the back for being the good guys. But there's not much victory-celebration language in his words! It’s always made me wonder what Clark knew that we don’t know even today. And while on another thread it was suggested that I was an isolationist and was accused of using “contemptuous language in speaking about America” that makes me “sound like another moveon.org dunderhead,” how are we to judge J. Reuben Clark and his words above? Clark was speaking as member of the LDS Church First Presidency and as a statesman who had a wealth of experience in and knowledge of America’s international dealings. For those of us who are LDS we have to wonder why a member of the First Presidency would write what he did. And for all of us, regardless of our backgrounds, we have to wonder why someone who had such a long and illustrious career in the US State Department would say such things. Now readers can rest. No more "girthiness" from me. At least not on this topic. I'm going to rest as well.

J. REUBEN CLARK, Excerpts, 1947, US foreign policy More “girth” for those who might be interested. But almost all the “girth” here comes from J. Reuben Clark, after whom BYU's law school was named. For those who don’t know who J. Reuben Clark was, I’ve provided a short background on him in the following paragraph before sharing his words. Clark was appointed assistant solicitor to the US State Department in 1906, which began his career in government. During WWI, he worked in the Attorney General’s office. In 1928, as Under Secretary of State, he wrote the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, which repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. He was US ambassador to Mexico from 1930-1933. In 1933, Clark was called to be a member of the LDS First Presidency to replace Charles W. Nibley. This call was unusual on two counts, one count being that while counselors in the First Presidency previously had generally been selected from within the general authorities of the LDS church, Clark had never even been a bishop or stake president. Until his death in 1961, Clark served in the presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George A. Smith, & David O. McKay. What follows after this paragraph was written by J. Reuben Clark in 1947. Please note that everything I quote comes from the same article. My inserts for clarification are in brackets.: “Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us. “It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path. “In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live. “Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace. “What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . . “. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . . “Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.” Interestingly, elsewhere in the same article Clark freely admitted to being an isolationist in terms of how US foreign policy was even then being used. He admitted to fully believing in “the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen”; that “American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes”; that “ America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century”; & that “moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations” but that “we [i.e., America as clearly seen in the context] now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.” These are his words, not mine. He also stated that he was not shaken in his “convictions or frightened by the assertion” that “the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are now in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, -- greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passon to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever.” Despite the technological advances, which would now include the internet, “we are just as we were . . We can and should mind our own business . . .” Again, Clark’s words above are from 1947, after the conclusion of WWII. This was a time when Americans were feeling pretty good about themselves. It's not a stretch to say that victory-celebration spirit was still strong. Yet Clark's words are not quite victory-celebration words that flatter us by telling us how good we are as a nation. Saintmichaeldefendthem1 suggested I was an isolationist and accused me in a public forum of using “contemptuous language in speaking about America” that makes me “sound like another moveon.org dunderhead." Yet one could make the same accusation of Clark and the words he used. But it becomes far more difficult to dismiss Clark when we realize he was speaking as member of the LDS Church First Presidency and as a statesman who had a wealth of experience in and knowledge of America's international dealings. Regardless of whether one agrees with Clark, one still has to wonder what he knew that we don't know that caused him to write what he did. Everyone may now relax. No more "girthiness" from me. At least not on this topic. I'm going to relax also.

Thanks, Elphaba, very much for what you wrote. I very much appreciate the words you wrote. It's not easy to post something that I know someone else might find offensive. Hence, sometimes I doubt it's really worth it. As I've said elsewhere, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I'm simply sharing a different viewpoint that's based on my experiences. But reading something such as you wrote makes all the difference. Knowing that just one person appreciates something I've shared makes it all worthwhile, and in that sense, what I write, I write for you.

I'm unsure which thread to post this at, but this seems more appropriate than most of the others. I forewarn anyone reading this that it will be a two parter. The first part will provide a little background that helps in understanding why I share what I do in the second part. I simply attempt to show a different perspective. One member on another thread stated that the "girth" of my posts were an attempt on my part to portray myself as an intellictual and to intimidate others into silence. I assure you that such is not the case. The "girth" of my articles is simply the way I write about topics. I simply find it difficult to take complex situations and reduce them to a few short sentences. As for my alleged attempt to portray myself as an intellectual and intimidate readers, trust me, I rarely expect anyone to even read what I write. I post things knowing that most people won't read what I've posted and believing that people are free to read or not read, agree or disagree, accept or reject in whole or in part. My only attempt is to show a different way of looking at things. I have no desire to get into an online debate/argument with anyone. I'm simply putting a different perspective out there. I realize that some might be offended by what I write or by how I phrase things. Yet my intent is not to offend, but simply to share a different viewpoint. And my main point in sharing any of this here is that I believe that our involvement in Libya cannot be understood if we divorce it from the larger picture, one which many of us are unable to see for various reasons. I simply want to share a different perspective on the bigger picture that might help us understand what's going on in Libya. As some know on this site, I'm an American LDS who has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia since several years before 9/11. While I've never thought of it as such, I am likely one of the few members on this site who has lived among Muslims Arabs, under Shari'ah, and in the heartland of Wahhabi'ism. Currently, I am not there; I'm simply elsewhere. If I were there, I wouldn't be sharing this online. As you learn quite quickly when you enter the kingdom, the walls have ears. They also have eyes. Of course, the same is now sadly true of the US. When I'm in Saudi, I do not post anything regarding religion or politics to this or any other site. I do not have a profile here and like most do not use my real name. I do this mainly because I don't want the Saudis among whom I work tracing anything back to me. My concern is not because I'm afraid of them, per se, but I would simply like to keep my job. I do not work for the US in any capacity. Nor am I a "private contractor," which is a euphemism in many instances for what was once know as a merc. In Saudi I live and work in the Eastern Province near Qateef, which is Shiite terrority. This part of Saudi is also where all the oil is. The lights of Manama, Bahrain, can be seen at night just across the water. Bahrain, as many now know, is "the home port" of the US 5th Fleet. It's a very small country, essentially what was once known as a city-state. It's about 15 miles from my stomping grounds. When oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia, it was discovered on the Shiite homeland. The Saudi government took a page out of American history and did to the Shiites what we did to the Indians--they forcibly moved them off their lands. (Note that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians can also be viewed in the same light--removing them from their lands and walling them in is not much different than a reservation where both the Indians and the Palestinians were and are made completely dependent on US or Israeli governments.) Saudi, like most Middle Eastern countries/societies, including the North African Muslims Nations are tribal, something we don't understand any better than our Anglo ancestors understood the tribal nature of the numerous Indian nations inhabiting what is now the US. Saudi is the only country in the world named after a family, the al-Sa'ud family. When one speaks of the Saudi government, one is referring, whether they realize it or not, to a government controlled by the al-Sa'ud family. Saudi has a poplulation of about 16 million natives. While you will see higher population figures, you have to subtract all the foreign expats working in the kingdom and their families, who make up about 30% of the population. While this is true for all the countries of the Gulf, the percentage of expat workers differs. For instance in the UAE, about 10-15 % are Shia in the area of Qateef. The royal family of Saudi consists of a very small percentage of the Saudi population. The family consists of between 6,000to 9,000 princes and princesses. (No one knows the exact number.) As is the custom, the first choice for a marriage partner is first cousins. In any event, rarely do individuals marry outside the extended family and the tribe to which they belong. Hence, royals marry royals for the most part. While the al-Sa'ud family does have tribes allied to it, their first loyalty remains with the family/tribe. This is important to remember when one considers the oil wealth that Saudi is known for. What's often missed in the West is that in Saudi, oil is considered the private property of the al-Sa'ud family. It is not a national resource. Rather, it is private property. Others are thrown bones here and there to buy and pacify them, but the wealth is the property of the royal family. Shedding some light on what this means can be seen in a Wikileaks leak of US diplomatic cables that showed that in 1996, "the lowliest member of the most remote branch of the [al-Sa'ud] family" received a monthly stipend of $800US. (This is per member, not per family; hence, a remote family of ten would be getting $8,000 US/month). The surviving sons of Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi, received between $200,000 to $270,000US/month. Grandchildren of the founder recieved $27,000/month; great-grandchildren $13,000/USmonth; and great-great-grandchildren $8,000US/month. Again, that was in 1996. Recently, at the same time US navy ships were sailing through the Red Sea back to the "shores of Tripoli," Saudi tanks were moved from Saudi across the King Fahd Causeway to Bahrain. The US media, to my knowledge, never covered that event. Instead, the US media focused almost solely on Libya and the US' riding to the rescue of Libyan rebels in the eastern part of Libya. And while our attention was focused on our then-approaching involvement in Libya to save the Libyan civilians. Saudi troops, along with other troos for most GCC countries, were crushing the peacefull demonstrations by Bahrainis. A little more history is necessary. The Shia of Bahrain make up about 70-80% of the population. Just as Gaddafi uses mercs, which the US uses as well, Bahrain also uses mercs. In fact, the typical policeman on the street is not Bahriani. Most are Pakistani. The Khalifa family’s security force is almost entirely merc--British SAS, Pakistani, Indian, etc. The Khalifa family, a good friend and ally to the US, has its roots in Saudi, their homeland. (While they came from the mainland 200 years ago, they still consider Saudi their homeland.) Bahrain is the poor man of the GCC, the Gulf countries. They don't really have any oil worth speaking of and most of their money comes from refineries and banking. And yes, the Khalifa royal family is heavily financed and supported by the al-Sa'ud family of Saudi. All the good jobs in Bahrain go to mostly Sunni, who are closely affiliated and allied to the Khalifa family. Most Bahraini Shia get the menial jobs. Violence during the demonstrations in Bahrain came almost totally from the reaction by the Khalifa family. Yet initially all the Bahraini demonstrators, which included a good number of Sunni, wanted was reform. But once the violence began, some called for the king's departure. Another point that's missed completely in the West is this. The largest American city outside the US is inside Saudi. Perhpas there's a reason for this since those in the region have long considered Saudi to be a de facto US colony. Perhaps this is because our agreement to protect the Saudi government, i.e., the royal family, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. (Sound familiar?) While we've technically moved our troops from Saudi, they are still in the area, especially Bahrain, which is a mere 15 miles from the oil fields of Saudi. I've even seen this quite low down in the system when I've asked Saudi officers why they don't hire Saudis to do jobs often given to Americans. The replies are essentially the same: we can't because we have to hire so many Americans every year or we run the risk of being distablized. Saudi does buy a lot of weapons from the US and the West. In fact, it's flooded with weapons, weapons no one really knows how to use other than those doing the training. Most Saudi troops don't know how to use or maintain them. And no sooner than western trainers train them how to properly maintain something than the particular hardward is scrapped and replaced by something else, which means new training is required. But it there are very good commissions, outrageous commissisons, for both Saudi buyers and Western suppliers. And it provides lots of jobs in the military-industrial complex and home and abroad. But the reality is that Saudi does nothing major without our tacit approval, consent, protection or request. This is also true for Bahrain. I do need to share a few thoughts on the Saudi military. The Saudi military, like most militaries in the ME are funded, trained, and supplied by the US. It can do a lot of harm to its own citizens, which is the same for the Egyptian military. It can also do a lot of harm for a small country like Bahrain. But on a large scale, there's nothing to worry about. Unemployment is high in Saudi and one of the ways to keep the people pacified is through giving them a job in the military. In essence, it's a form of welfare where they are taught a few things, where attempts are made to unite people whose primary loyalty is to their tribe, and it gives them a little money which allows them to marry and help their families. And most importantly, it keeps them off the streets and under the watchful eye of the powers that be. Other than that, it's a joke. I've seen military cadets between 20-30 having problems changing flat ties. I've worked with soldiers who have epilepsy, not the kind of guy you want behind a gun. During marching drills on the parade ground, I've seen obese soldiers who get to stand on the sidelines because marching is too tiring. A friend of mine was a US fighter pilot in the Gulf War. He said that the hardest thing they had to do during the war was to try to get the pilots into their planes! In fact, there was one decorated Saudi pilot during that war. But he himself didn't want go fight. It wasn't until American fighter planes trapped an Iraqi pilot in the air, got him to expend all his weapons, and then vectored in the Saudi pilot when it was safe and he could down the Iraqi pilot without any real risk to himself. The reality is that the Saudi military is like the Keystone Kops. The navey spends most of it's time looking for pirates off the coast and the navy shuts down about 3 p.m. so the married men can get home and take their wives shopping. (Remember, their wives can't drive.) The real military backbone of the country comes from two sources. The first is the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) which consists of members of bedouin' tribes loyal to the al-Sa'ud family. They're like the royal family's praetorian guard; they were also sent with the Saud army into Bahrain to take care of the problem there. The second is the US military, along with the US president's private military, the CIA, and our enormous supplement of private contractors, America's new Hessians. Lastly, the Shiites of Bahrain and Iran have no more in common that Mexcian and American Mormons do. They are not Iranian sympathizers. They make this clear in many ways. Even US State Department documents have showed that there was no Iranian meddling in Bahrain until after the Saudi/GCC crackdown on the demonstrators. Regarding the UN, NATO, the Arab Leaque and the GCC. The GCC are the Gulf states, of which Saudi is top dog. The Arab League consists of 22 states and has been ignored for its entire history until it requested help from the UN vis-a-vis Libya. The UN has no power except what is given to it by the Security Council, which currently consists of 15 members. Yet the only members in the SC that have any power within the UN are the the five permanent members of the UN, i.e. the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. Any one of these five members can veto anything that comes before it. And anything done by the UN similar to the current involvement in Libya is done with their approval. In terms of Resolution 1973 which Obama uses to justify the US involvement in Libya, Russia and China abstained when the vote was taken, which means that it passed becaue it had the approval of the US, the UK and France. And NATO, which, should have disappeared after the collapse of the USSR, is under US control and commanded by an American general. It has, for all intents and purposes, become the UN military. And as J. Reuben Clark pointed out many years ago, the UN's purpose is not peace but war. OK, sorry for the length of this for anyone who might read it. Initially, I failed to make this post to this thread and ended up making two posts to the thread entitled "It Was Right to Intervene" found under Current Events. The second post at that thread was meant to be the second part of this post here. But since I've already posted it there, there's no need to do so here. Rest assured, the second part/post there is not nearly as long as this post. Basically, it shares links to articles written by people (Paul Craig Roberts, etc) that have help explain best what I've experienced and learned living in the ME. So if anyone is interested in browsing through those articles, you can find the links to them at that thread.

Saintmichaeldefendthem1 , While we obviously disagree on most of what I wrote, I do retract something you pointed out, i.e., my writing "any dictator, even our own." That was poor wording on my part. I was not referring to Obama, but to our dictators in the ME, as the context should have suggested. As for criticizing Obama, I was not criticiziing him per se. I was referring to the word games all politicians play, regardless of party. The political manipulation of language is, as Orwell taught quite well, always part of the game played. And it's played by politicians and media alike. Your assumption that I'm one of those nasty isolationists doesn't quite fit my background given that my entire career has involved my working and living in the Far East, Latin America, and the Middle East. Hence, I'm far more international than the typical citizen. Of course, the term isolationist as used in America today was first used as a term of opprobrium that was used specifically to label Americans of an earlier generation who did not approve of our initial attempts to use the military to do abroad what America's founders warned us against doing. Hence, if J. Reuben Clark, an ambassador to Mexico, were alive today and saying or writing what he did after WWII, he would be branded an isolationist. Of course, so would David O. McKay. Politically, I've been a registered Republican and, much to my regret, voted the party-line my entire adult life. I'm actually an old-school Republican, or what some have called a Burkean conservative. Regardless of how I mihgt be labelled, I'm one who believes very strongly that the reason we are in such a mess as a nation is partly because we. as a nation, have, in religious terms, apostatized from our founding gospel, as I referenced in my first post to this thread. Please note that before I'm accused of being anti-American, I make a distinction between the America the Founders gave us and the America we are now living in; between America my homeland and America as the federal government; and between American values, ideals, and principles as opposed to what we actually do. And while I do believe in America's earlier dictum that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, I am very much in favor of Americans as Americans having dealings all over the world. In fact, I believe that one of the problems Americans have in dealing with and understading situations abroad is precisely because few of us have any real experience abroad. Of course, even then it can be confusing, perhaps even more so. The "girth" of my article, as you described it, is rooted simply in the way I write. I find it difficult to explain complex issues in a few lines. But to go from that to accusing me of an intent to portray myself as an intellectual and to intimidate people into silence is quite a stretch. No one needs to read what I post. I don't really expect anyone to given the length of what I post. All I've done is to post other ways of looking at a complex and confusing situation. I simply posted some of my thoughts, but I did so knowing that people are free to do what they choose. They can read or not read, agree or disagree. They can also ignore you and me and can and should do their own research, their own thinking and come to their own conclusions. As for what I wrote, I stand by it. But since this is not a place to debate with others on the forum in detail, and since doing so certainly requires more"girth," I see no point in attempting to counter your comments point by point. In any event, it's not as though I've come up with the ideas I've expressed on my own. But given my experience living in the ME, I do have views that obviously differ from those of many Americans who have never lived there in a non-government related capacity or otherwise. And because of my experiences I tend to agree with writers from all over the political map whose writings and insights come closest to explaining what I've learned by living in the ME and elsewhere. By the way, one thing I do find interesting about your accusation that I have used the "girth" of my article to intimidate people into silence is that while you suggest in a public forum that I am likely an isolationist, the real irony is that the term you used, i.e., isolationist, has been used pejoratively in America for over a hundred years to intimidate into silence Americans who oppose or even criticize any departure from America's founding principles as they relate to our foreign policy. This term along with its cousin "isolationism" have consistently been used not only to silence such Americans but to marginalize them so that no one else pays any heed to what they might contribute to a debate in a true marketplace of ideas. But for those following this thread who might be interested in reading more, let me share the following sources that simply share different takes on the situation. The writers who follow are among those who I tend to agree with based on my background. First, let me say that I tend to agree with Craig Murray on the reason for our getting involved in Libya. Craig Murray, worked for about 20 years in the British diplomatic corps and was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan until about 2005. You can read about his background at his blog. In any event, he believes, and I concur, that our involvement in Libya is most likely an attempt to crush what has become known as the Arab Spring/Awakening of these past few months. If such is true, then everything else--oil, water, ports, Gaddafi's refusal to participate in AFRICAM--is simply icing on the cake. When Murray writes about the legality of our involvement in Libya, we need to remember that he is writing as a British citizen. For Americans, there is a constitutional issue, which, naturally, is of no concern for Murray. Paul Craig Roberts, as many here know, is a Republican and was a Reagan appointee to the Treasury. Lew Rockwell is a libertarian. Pat Buchanan, a Republican, is the first one I've seen who clearly pointed out that Gaddafi and Lincoln have something in common. Of course, Buchanan is also labeled an isolationist. I've provided the pertinent quote and a link. I've provided a link to an article by Eric Margolis, a respected columnist/author who has extensive experience covering the Middle East and the greater region. His articles and books on the region provide insights that are often missing in the US debates, but the specific one I've provided a link for addresses SaintMichaelDefender1 disagreement with respect to my assertion that by the time we had effectively entered WW II, Germany had already been bled dry by the Soviet Red Army. I do not expect anyone to simply accept Margolis' views. But it does provide information and food for thought that anyone can independently verify and come to their own conclusions on. Pepe Escobar, is, if I remember correctly, Brazilian but has vast experience covering the ME. While I agree with most of what he writes, I disagree on his statements describing life inside Saudi Arabia. I disagree based on my experience living there. His article "Rage Against the House of Saud" is what I'm specifically referring to where he describes what it's like to live in Saudi. For instance, his descriptions of Wahhabiism in Saudi and how expat workers live in "perpetual fear" in Saudi are way off the mark. But his descriptions of the way things work between the US, the KSA, and Bahrain are quite accurate. (By the way, NYTEKTCHR, who posted a greeting here from Saudi, e-mailed me telling me that she loves living in Buraydah, which is in the Qur'an Belt, the most conservative part of the country. She's a doctor from Las Vegas who's the first Western woman to tell me that she really enjoys wearing the veil! Of course, she lives in a part of the country where all women wear veils which is not the case outside the Qur'an Belt.) Ok, pardon my "girth" in all this but the articles I share below are for anyone who's interested in reading more. 1. CRAIG MURRAY’S BLOG Craig Murray Blog Archive Cameron and Sarkozy’s Libyan Debacle Craig Murray Blog Archive The Invasion of Bahrain His blogs on the ME: Craig Murray Middle East 2. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS The New Colonialism by Paul Craig Roberts Libya – The DC/NATO Agenda and the Next Great War by Paul Craig Roberts 3. PAT BUCHANAN: “Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?" “Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans – a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war. “Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then. “The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America.” A Foolish and Unconstitutional War by Patrick J. Buchanan 4. LEW ROCKWELL The Other Captive Nations by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Another Obama War by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. 5. Eric Margolis (whose book "American Raj" I highly recommend) describes in the article linked below how Germany had the USSR was in trouble in 1941 when Germany invaded. But even though the US Congress declared war in Dec. 1941, it took almost all of 1942 to get us ready to enter the conflict. We used 1942 to mobilize which included getting production going, troop strength up, arming, and developing a wartime management organization such as had been used in WWI. By 1943 we were ready. D-Day took place June 1944. But the war began for Europe in 1939. Moreover, as to my assertion that we entered WWI late, we entered in April 1917 in a war that begin in 1914 and ended in 1918. By the time we entered, European powers were badly warn down, but by our entrance, a valid argument can be made that the war was prolonged. Incidentally, Margaret Thatcher's defense aide Alan Clark stated that the war could have ended in 1940 had it not been for Churchill's "obsession" with Hitler that prevented Churchill from accepting Germany's offer to end the war. One can say that something similar seems to be playing out in Libya. Read Craig Murray's most recent blog ("Cameron and Sarkozy's Libyan Debacle," April 11, 2011) on how NATO/the rebels, by rejecting the ceasefire, are now in violation of Resolution 1973, the same resolution we used to justify our involvement in Libya in the first place. Feldgrau.net • View topic - Did Russia Win D-Day? Eric Margolis 5. PEPE ESCOBAR Escobar’s articles on the Arab Spring/Awakening, which include articles on Libya and the KSA can be found here. This page provides the links to each of his articles. : Asia Times Online :: the best of Pepe Escobar

ProphetofDoom, Reading of your frustration with the Western media reminded me of a the description of the American media by the Israeli thinker, Uri Avnery. He perfectly describes the American media as "mixture of propaganda, news and entertainment." Once I began working in the ME in a non-government capacity I began to realize very clearly that all we see is what is framed by the lens of the camera, so to speak. I've got to where I actually prefer Al-Jazeera to American news outlets even though I realize that it, too, has its bias. And as bad as things are in the Western media, at least in Europe one can actually watch foreign news channels, which, of course, doesn't help most Americans if they don't know the foreign language. A DVD you might appreciate is Control Room, which was produced by Al-Jazeera and deals with the invasion of Iraq. At the end of the DVD, one of the producers states that the war was just like a Hollywood movie--you knew who the bad guys were, who the good guys were, you new the plot, you knew how it would end with the deaths of the bad guys, but you had to hang in there because you were so curious as to how the bad guys would meet their end. She made a good point that applies to much of our news. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the partial quote.

If we wanted to protect civilians from dying in Africa, there is always Congo, where up to 4 million have died over the years. There is also Ivory Coast, were at least a couple of hundred thousand have died. We know that for a fact in both cases. Yet to this day no one knows how many civilians have been killed by Gaddafi or the rebels. Living and working in the ME, I've come to know that Arabs love to talk, talk big, but threats usually end as threats. The US State Department should know this. So what Gaddafi says is immaterial. In any event, before running to the rescue, we should have had some kind of fact-finding mission. We still don't know how many were killed and we don't know who the rebels even are. One thing that is certain is that Gaddafi has a lot of support from the Libyan people. In any event, I tend to agree with Pat Buchanan on this one that while we in the US consider it evil for Gaddafi to us violence to put down a rebellion in Libya, Lincoln used violence to put down what he saw as a rebellion in our own country and Lincoln is at the top of the American pantheon of presidents. Yet at the time Lincoln declared war on the South, after the latter fired on Fort Sumter, no one had yet been killed. Nor did the South ever try to overthrow the government, which is the nature of a civil war and which has been the goal of the Libyan rebels. The South simply wanted to leave the Union. But the North wouldn’t allow a repeat of what the founders had done during the Revolution. Result? About 620,000 Americans died over the next four years. In the current situation some of the ways that have been used to demonize Gaddafi are as follows. Gaddafi has been accused of using mercs. But we use mercs all the time. We just call them "private contractors." Fallujah was leveled because of the deaths of 4 mercs. He has been accused of not fighting fairly and it was said here in one post that our coming to the rebels aid can be seen as a picking-on-someone-your-own-size sort of justice. But the US hasn't picked on anyone its own size for long time. We've been using far superior force to go after smaller, weaker nations for decades. As with WW I, which we entered late, we entered WW II late, well after the USSR had basically bled Germany dry. (We like to boast how we saved Europe from the Nazis but the truth is that Europeans give as much credit to the USSR. Worse, we forget that we gave the USSR all of Eastern Europe.) Post WW II there’s been North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. (I might have missed a few.) All of them have been third world nations with third world militaries. None of these are our own size. They’re not even close. Few of them even had anything close to a navy or anything resembling a decent air force. In Iraq and Afghanistan they fight us in sandals and loose flowing robes; we have helmets and body armor. They don't have any of the hi-tech weapons we have. Remember, for Iraq, there was first the Gulf War, followed by 11 years of bombing in the no-fly zones and sanctions for a country 90% dependent on imports, followed by our invasion of 2003. Of course, all of that was on the heals of a destructive war between Iraq and Iran, with our helping Iraq. By 2003, Iraq was on its back. It was in ruins. As for Gaddafi's using planes to bomb people, we also use planes to bomb from miles above. (Note that in such an asymmetrical war, car bombs are essentially a poor country's air force.) They certainly don’t have anything close to just one of our carriers, much less the two and their respective strike groups just off Libya’s coast. We fire cruise missiles from up to 900 miles out to sea. And we launch drones from nice comfortable offices on America’s eastern seaboard. The truth is that since the end of WW II, Washington has had a very clear preference for picking on small nations that are nowhere near our own size. And we do so using our superior technology which they don’t even come close to matching. Such is the case now, with our deciding to go after Gaddafi. Moreover, up until recently we were selling Gaddafi weapons, just as we do neighboring Egypt. And we know full well that neither Libya nor Egypt have any neighboring countries they need to fear. Hence, we sell them weapons knowing full well that these weapons will most likely be used against these countries’ own respective citizens. The US certainly does play a key role in the UN and NATO. But it’s more than just a key role. The UN and NATO can do nothing of this sort without the US. The UN General Assembly is powerless. Only the UN Security Council has is any power and is lodged in its five permanent members, i.e., the US, the UK, France, China and Russia. These five are the only countries with veto power and any one of them could have stopped Resolution 1973 from passing. While China and Russia abstained during the vote, the US, the UK and France approved. As for NATO, it should have died with the collapse of the USSR 20 years ago. But it was conveniently kept alive and has become the de facto military branch of the UN, which is under US control. We simply use the UN and NATO as a convenient cover. When Obama says it's been passed to NATO that's just a game of words. We're still in charge. The commanding general of NATO is American. We’re simply passing the prosecution of this war from ourselves to ourselves. The UN and NATO are simply masks we hide behind when it’s convenient. Then there are those pesky dictators. However, the one thing that should have been made clear in the past two months is the fact that while the USSR for years had their bloc of satellite nations, we also had our bloc of satellite nations. The Soviet bloc was Eastern Europe, which, of course, we gave them at the conclusion of WWII, in accordance with our Yalta agreement. The American bloc of satellite nations stretches from Morocco in NW Africa through the Middle East. Those dictators who won't bow to us and do our bidding are labeled evil, perpetually demonized by us, and often compared to Hitler. Currently, these are Iran, Libya, and Syria, the latter perhaps being next after Libya. Those who obey us are allies, our friends, those with whom we have a “special relationship,” as Gates and Mullen recently pointed out. On much smaller scale, Bahrainis were crushed by our allies and friends in the Gulf at the same time we decided to get rid of Gaddafi. The timing was perfect. Too perfect, actually. In fact, diplomats from other nations have stated that such was part of a deal between the White House and Riyadh. If Riyadh would get the GCC, all of whom are our dictators, to pressure the Arab League to request help from the UN in Libya, a well-known enemy to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the US would give them the green light to crush the demonstrators in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Saudi is top dog in the GCC, none of whom want any change in their fiefdoms. All Saudi needed was three other votes to get everything going rolling--Khalifa of Bahrain was already on board and less than half of the Arab League was even present for the vote. And while the US media diverted our attention to US ships sailing through the read sea to rescue Libyan rebels, of whom we know nothing, American supplied Saudi tanks and American trained Saudi troops moved across the King Fahd Causeway into Bahrain. Interestingly, something that is completely missed in the US is that fact that in the Gulf and the greater region, Saudi Arabia is considered a de facto US colony. Gaddafi of Libya and King Abdullah of Saudi hate each other. Abdullah wants Gaddafi gone as does the US since Libya, besides having oil and lots of scarce water, estimated at about 200 years of the current Nile flow, was also one of five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, part of our military doctrine of full spectrum dominance in which we've carved up the world into different American military commands. AFRICOM is the US African Command. Of the five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, there is Western military intervention in four, and American military intervention in at least three that we know of. Additionally, in the Mediterranean the US Navy is denied access to the ports of only two nations, Libya and Syria. On thing certain is that our war with Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, and war it is since the mere act of attempting to establish a no-fly zone on a sovereign nation is an act of war under international law. The White House can call it "kinetic military action" and claim it’s for humanitarian reason, but no matter how we dress it up, it’s still a war and it’s for anything but humanitarian reasons. One thing that going after Libya has accomplished has been to kill mostly peaceful demonstrations and calls for reforms elsewhere in the ME. While our attention was intentionally shifted to Libya, everything supposedly gained by the departure of Mubarak in Egypt was lost this past week as Mubarak's fellow officers banned further demonstrations and street gatherings. (Egypt’s dictator was never just one man but a military junta of high-ranking officers of whom Mubarak was simply the face we knew.) Also, our little dictators in the Gulf can now sleep easier, as can we, knowing that nothing is really going to change. In essence, the Arab Awakening is being crushed, which is precisely what is wanted by the various rulers of the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and members of the GCC and our other friends in the region. Please note that I am not attempting to defend Gaddafi or any dictator, even our own. But the stench that comes from our hypocrisy as a nation in all this is almost overpowering. If we had stayed with what the founders had set up, we wouldn't have all these problems. But the more we meddle, the more problems we create for ourselves and the more freedom we give up. The truth is that the US has become far worse than the British empire America's founding father's rebelled against in during the Revolution. We have, using an appropriate phrase from the Bible, been as a dog turned to its vomit. We have become what the founders feared and abhorred. I agree with President Benson who basically said that we have apostatized from the founding gospel of this nation, which can be seen in part in the Constitution and the Declaration.. J. Reuben Clark, in general conference, after the conclusion of WWII, warned that if we did not change our nation's foreign policies we would become hated justly by other nations. Lord Acton stated that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The US, of all countries, comes closest to having absolute power, and we are addicted to it. And it has corrupted us. As Spencer W. Kimball said, we are a warlike people. And as with Rome, the Republic is dead and has been for some time. We are living in a time of America's world empire, yet so many of us don't, or won’t, see it. And lest anyone think that we are the good guys on the block, it was Joseph Fielding Smith who said the following: “The United States is not the kingdom of God, . . . Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments [of the world] as far as the Lord will permit him. . . One master mind is governing the nations . . . it is Satan himself.”

Slamjet, In your post regarding a fireside you attended you wrote regarding Libya: "I attended a I fireside last night with the speaker who is involved in diplomatic circles, works in international law and diplomacy and was the U.S. representative at the U.N. general assembly. His experiences clearly shows that the arrogance of the U.S. is a misnomer. The world at large are constantly wanting to know what the U.S. stance is on things. They will act if and when the U.S. will act. It's all part of the promise in the Book of Mormon about this country. "What we are seeing is what happens when the U.S. does not act. Other countries come begging us to do something. This inaction/late action in Japan and Libya will shape the world's opinion for a long time to come. That opinion will be that the U.S. is still an absolute necessity in the world. Yea, France and the UK can take the lead but nothing will happen without us being involved. "Whether we like it or not, we are the world's police force. We'd better get used to it.” Please don't think I'm playing the devil's advocate here or trying to contradict anything you wrote. But when you wrote that "[t]he world at large are constantly wanting to know what the U.S. stance is on things. They will act if and when the U.S. will act. It's all part of the promise in the Book of Mormon about this country," I was unsure how the world's acting and its wanting to know the US stance are specifically related to the BOM promise for this country. I'm probably just reading things wrong, but if you could clarify what you meant, I'd very much appreciate it. Also, could you please refer to the specific scriptures you're referring to. Thanks!

Enjoying this thread, I'll have to share some thoughts for those who believe it's ok as long as it's beneficial. Most Muslims are Sunni, the the second largest branch of Isalm are the Shia or Shiites. My residence in Saudi is technically in Shiite territory, between Qateef and the neighboring country of Bahrain, just south of Iran which is predominantly Shia. Unlike the Sunni, Shia have what is known as temporary marriages. Sometimes they are called "weekend marriages," other times "vacation marriages," but mostly they are known as temporary marriages, where the "expiration date" is agreed to in advance by the contracting parties. With the exception of the expiration date, it's handled like a regular marriage. Marriages in Islam are not a sacrament but a contract where the dowry is negotiated. Anything the bride wants to include in the contract must be provided by the groom as along as it does not violate the laws of Islam. So if she wants a house in the mountains near Taif and a second in Monaco and a third in the Bahamas, such is acceptable. She could even stipulate a monthly stipend. In any event, Sunnis condemn this as prostitution. But it's different in one sense from our prostitution does allow more rights than our prostitutes get in their practice. The real odd thing is that in Saudi you now find women who prefer these kinds of marriages because not just because of all the benefits but because of the power it gives them in a culture where men have more visible/public power. Hence, it's liked by both the men and the women who enter into these marriages, as no one is forced into them. (Of course, before we laugh at them, we need to remember that many of our marriages are for all purposes temporary. I even remember when I was a student in Utah . . . but maybe given this is a public forum I best shy away from that thought!) Also, as you know, Muslims can have up to four wives. Polygamy, or more properly, polygany. (Again, most Muslims, and many anthropologists, refer to us in America as practicing serial polygamy, which is actually a mix of polygamy and temporary marriages but that's another story.) Besdes polygamy, the Middle East, including North Africa, consist of tribal cultures, something we don''t really understand, just as we didn't understand it when what is now the US was being colonized. What it means in part is that one's loyalty is to one's tribe, not to the nation of which one is a citizen. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a family, the al-Sa'ud family, which is part of a larger tribe. Moreover, the East as well as Africa are parts of the world where the smallest unit of society is the family, not the individual. In Europe and the children of Europe (i.e., the US, Canada, Australia, etc) have cultures where the smallest unit is the individual. Latin America, with respects to family, is more like the countries of the East (including the Middle and the Far East). And to some extent the US was such prior to WWII. In any event, in countries where the smallest unit is the family, while one's job is one's job, his income is used to support not only his own immediate family, but his extended family and even those of his village or tribe. When you see little kids in Mexico trying to sell chicle or wash your car windows, the money they earn helps out the larger family. It's not their own as it is for children in the US. There are good points to this. But there is a darker side in Saudi, one that involves marriage among the Saudi royal family, which would naturally be Sunni. Wikileaks revealed an American diplomatic cable which dealt with corruption within the royal family. The royal family, which is protected by the US government from all enemies foreign and "domestic", similar to what is the case with Bahrain, considers oil it's own private, not national, property. Most of the oil revenues goes to the royal family, which consists of between 6,000 and 9,000 princes and princesses. (Think tribal.) Wikileaks revealed how corrupt the system is. It showed that in 1996, the lowliest member of the most remote branch of the royal family received a stipend of $800/month. From there it gets better, much better. Sons of the country's founder got stipends between $200,000 to $270,000/month. Their children got $27,000/month; grandchildren got $13,000/month; great-great-grandchildren got $8,000/month. And within the diplomatic cables that someone might not piece together with the total picture--it read, "the stipends also provide a substantial incentive for royals to procreate since the stipends begin at birth." Remember, this is in Saud where first cousin marriages are the marriage of choice, where the smallest unit is the family, where families are large, where individual incomes provide for the greater family at large, and where loyalty is to the tribe before anyone else. Also, factor in the possibility of more than one wife, with each wife likely being a princess. It begins to give you how beneficial the arrangement is. The father gets his stipend, his wife or wives get their stipends, and where each child is getting his or her stipend, all adding to the family and tribal wealth. I have one friend, whose father has four wives and my friend comes from a family of 35 children. While he is not a member of the royal family, imagine what kind of family wealth we'd be talking about if his family were part of the royal family. Again, everything is mutually beneficial, including the marraiges and all each marriage affords. Lastly, and this is back in the US. My mother has a good friend, an adopted daughter of sorts. She's in her late 50s and recently lost her husband. She doesn't like the loneliness and desperately wants to marry. But she makes it clear that she's still in love with her first husband, to whom she was sealed. She's very good friends with a man in the ward who's also widowed. She'd like to marry him but she and the RS sisters have talked about the fact that he likely can't satisfy her physical needs in bed since he's about 10 years older. Hence, she's looking for someone closer to her age who can give her everything she wants. Of course, since she was sealed, she's definitely looking for a temporary marriage where the expiration date is the death of one of the parties. Remember, in all instances, the marriages are certainly beneficial just as they were with Lizzy's grandmother! Suffice it to say, I'm not Solomon and his wisdom escapes me. I think I'll stay away from an answer to the original question.

Angela007, Let me share a few thoughts that came to mind as I read the part of your post that dealt with age restrictions. When I was a student at BYU, the father of a good friend of mine was a GA. This friend told me that the leaders went back and forth, back and forth on singles' wards. Some believed that singles' wards should be done away; others believed the opposite. What it came down to, according to what her father had told her, was a majority decision. And I do remember seeing it go from one other at different times. With respect to this, and to the larger context of grouping people by age, that's something the the church does based on culture. In other words, some of the church's program's reflect the culture in which it is operating. And in the US as well as other countries similar to the US culturally, members are grouped by age. The fact that the US is a culture that groups people by age in so many ways, some of the church's programs follow the same pattern. Think of our public schools where the grade you're in is based on age. In my grandmother's day, before public schools were the norm, classes were based on the level of education one had. As a result, the norm was having children of every age in the same classroom. My grandmother was taken out of school when she graduated from the 8th grade so her mother could go to school and learn to read and write, which meant that a grandmother with a daughter who'd graduated from the 8th grade was in school with young children and teenagers and all were learning the same subject. And it's not just in school we do this. It's all over the board where we group by age. Yet other countries and cultures operate different and the church programs reflect this. When I was in Mexico in the 1990s, I was in my early 30s. I was not married then so I was quite accustomed to being classified by age. I remember my first experience in the next step up from SYA, what my close friends and I referred to as Special Lepers. What a shock! I found out quickly that about there were only two things we had in common--we were all LDS and all in the same age group. Other than those two points, I was a square peg in a round hole. This and more were part of my thoughts, mindset, and expectations when I found myself in Mexico. I was invited to an LDS dance in Mexico City (el DF). Being the typical gringo from the US, I was thinking in terms of the various groupings we had in the US based on age. Hence, I asked my Mexican brothers and sisters what age group the dance was for? Note, I'm fluent in Spanish, so there was no real language barrier. But my background was a barrier since I was speaking of things they had no concept of. When I'd ask my question, they didn't seem to understand what I was talking about. I re-phrased things, and they still didn't understand. When I spelled it all out, they were surprised that we did things that way and said that in any event it was for everytone. I still didn't know what they really meant until I went to the dance. Sure enough, it was for everyone, something I'd never experienced in all my years living in the US. Everyone was out there dancing and having a good time. The elderly and the young all mingled together. And for the first time in my life, I actually saw little children of 8, 9, or 10 dancing at a chuch dance right along with everyone else. Since that time I've lived all over the world, and I've repeatedly seen how the church adapts certain programs or policies (as opposed to teachngs, principles and doctrines) to the culture in which it finds itself. For the past several years, I've seen this in the Middle East. But I've also seen it throughout Latin America, the Far East, and Europe. While I've come to appreciate the Mexican way, I do understand what the leaders are attempting to do in the US when it comes to certain programs. The truth is that the Mexican way might not work in the US since our cultures are different. But given my experience working and living abroad as one who is not attached living on all the Little Americas abroad I've come to appreciate even more how the church has an adaptability that we sometimes don't see in our own culture. On a personal level, I've come to value the Latin way, were age or status are not part of the equation, but I probably would have never come to value their way of doing things if I hadn't lived there since I grew up in a culture that did things differently and my mindset was in large measure shaped, nourished, and rooted in my native culture.

Backroads, I was ordained at 18 so I could attend my older brother's temple marriage. Someone mentioned that in some countries, men are ordained at 18 to go on missions. As an American, this exception didn't apply. But I did have to get permission, which actually came from the president of the church at the time. My being ordained was conditioned on my promise to go on a mission when I turned 19. As for the marriage in Saudi of an older man to a 12 year old, let me suggest that we need to be aware that different cultures are just that, different. I'm not saying this to justify a situation such as was mentioned. But I do say it because sometimes we don't really understand what's going on. Not all countries have marriage laws as detailed as US state laws are. Moreover, marriage in most Middle Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia, is a two-step process, something we don't even think about. I'm not talking about our two steps of engagement and then marriage. I'm talking about marriage itself. One can technically be "married" while the actually wedding doesn't take place until sometime later. (It might help to think of the story of Mary's marriage to Joseph in the NT.) In other words, you can have a marriage at a young age, but the "wife," for lack of a better English word, still lives with her parents until the wedding, after which the marrige will be consummated. This even impacts inheritance law. For instance, if a woman has achieved the first step of the marriage but not the second step and her "betrothed" dies before the wedding, all that was spelled out in the marriage contract must be given to her before anyone else inherits. And unlike our marriages, a Muslim women is not legally a member of her husband's family. Legally she remains a member of her birth family. As I said, I'm not sharing this to justify marrying a child, but simply to point out that since marriage customs vary from culture to culture, we need to be aware that what constitutes being married in country x might not be the same thing as being married in country y. Indeed, what constitutes an adult varies from culture to culture. In our own country, for instance, the very idea of "adolescence" is a very recent concept. Hence, in some cultures, children "grow up" faster than in other cultures.

Traveler, I agree with you that there’s a cultural problem here, but that goes back to what I’ve been focusing on, a widespread ignorance among the American people regarding Muslims and Islam. I agree with several here who have wondered what would this controversy would be like if 9/11 had been committed by an offshoot Mormon cult. Of course, I think that given the view many Americans apparently have of Mormonism, I suspect we already know the answer to that. But looked at in a slightly different way, we’d likely find a different situation altogether. For instance, if 9/11 had been committed by a violent Christian cult and an unrelated Christian denomination wanted to build a church in this spot, I seriously doubt anyone would really care. The only difference would be that in this hypothetical, American Christians would recognize the perps as a group of fanatics and not represtantive of most Christians, but when it comes to Islam, as in this particular case, our national ignorance of Islam kicks in. I actually never wanted to get involved with this thread because I realized it was a very touchy issue. When I read the very first post on this thread, I suspected the direction this thread would take, and I wanted no part of it. However, it was your first post that triggered my decision to become involved. In your first post you stated that Islamic law requires all Muslims in a mosque to protect a known terrorist and then you essentially accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism. I disagreed with you regarding Islamic law, shared a teaching Muslims have similar to our own about obeying the laws the land in which they live, and then provided information regarding Rauf and the proposed Cordoba House project. At that time I felt that the facts were missing for this thread, facts about Shari’a, about Rauf, and about the proposed project itself. In my mind, what you shared in that first post contributed to the misunderstanding and the cultural disconnect that is rooted in ignorance, both of which your most recent post addresses quite well. But in that first post, you actually accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism for expressing some of the same views that many Americans/Christians, including several prominent Republicans, have. While I hate to do this, let’s go back to your first post for something I’ve never addressed. I address it here purely to show again why I became involved and why my emphasis has been on ignorance and the need to have the facts before we attempt to rationally discuss something like this. So please do not take this personally, as I do not mean it as such. Please know that while I think the following paragraph is a very inaccurate portrayal of the situation you addressed in that paragraph, I also believe that you were sincerely attempting to portray reality as you thought it to be. I do not think for a minute that you were attempting to share inaccurate information. I’m simply using this to highlight where I’m coming from. In any event, you wrote the following-- “There are some interesting facts concerning Islam in New York City. There already are several Mosques in New York City. In fact there is no need for an additional Mosque. There is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship. The size of the proposed Mosque along with the location and the number of Muslims that will live in proximity makes no sense what-so-ever. The Mosque is not serving any need within New York City.” (Post #82) Everything expressed in that paragraph you introduced as facts as your first sentence indicates. In your second sentence you wrote that there are already “several” mosques in NYC. (Of course, we should point out that NYC has a population of about 8 million.) One could say you are correct in saying “several,” which actually suggests far fewer mosques than what there really are. However, in the context its use unfortunately distorts reality given the actual number of Muslims per mosque there are in the city. In your third sentence you stated as fact that there is no further need for "an (i.e., one) additional mosque" in NYC, an idea you echoed in your concluding sentence. You stated as facts that “there is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship.” Yet Reuters and other sources show that while there are about 800,000 Muslims in NYC, roughly 10% of the population, there are only about 100 mosques.* (Let’s imagine the LDS Church trying to accommodate 800,000 members, or even 10% of this number, into 100 chapels and see if there is no overcrowding.) Moreover, the place where this project was proposed to be located, a place where Muslims have been worshipping since before 9/11, has been repeatedly described as an overcrowded basement. Regarding your statement that there were no travel difficulties involved, your paragraph failed to take into account that this part of NYC is a transportation hub where large numbers of people pass through daily. It also did not take into account that Muslims pray up to five times a day, and two to three of those prayers often occur during business hours, which makes it difficult for Muslims working in any given area to travel to another mosque when they get a work-break which they often use to pray. (I'm sure you've seen in your travels that some of their prayers can be relatively short, but if they have to tack on travel time to that prayer, then there can easily be travel-related difficulties, especially in a place like NYC. Then, too, we need to remember that their prayer times change daily.) Lastly, when your paragraph referred to the size of the proposed “mosque,” it failed to mention everything else that was proposed to be part of the project, which leads to the belief that it is be strictly a "mosque." Please note that I admire much of what you have shared here and elsewhere. As I've said before, I agree with much of what you have added to this thread. But your initial post on this thread had, in my opinion, problems related to the facts that I felt need to be corrected. Moreover, no one countered you or even addressed the issue of facts. And silence, in our society, is generally interpreted as lending consent. It was that post which made me decide to weigh in. Perhaps no one knew what the facts were, but that’s the point I’ve been addressing all along. We have a duty to learn the facts before we can discuss an issue such as this rationally. Failing to do so, we only contribute to misunderstandings and misrepresentations when we offer our opinions. Facts are an important first step if we wish to unshackle our minds from ignorance. You and I would likely agree with Jefferson’s words that “f a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” We as Mormons should be adding to the light that is fading, not contributing to an enveloping darkness. Of course, even when we have the facts, there is the issue of interpretation of those facts, which can be complicated in itself. Let me share two examples that I've heard repeatedly since 9/11 from non-Mormons and Mormons alike, which is something I find strange for Mormons to buy into. My first example is this--we constantly hear of the violence promoted in the Quran and of how the Quran teaches that Muslims are justified in killing the infidel and anyone who converts to another religion. But before we can truly discuss these two issues, we first need to find the passages involved, put them in context, and then see how such things are interpreted by Muslims today, including their definitions of infidel and conversion. If we fail to do these things, then how do we handle the same accusation when it’s made about our scriptures? After all, anyone who has ever read the OT in its entirety knows it is full of violence. I also remember very well experiences I’ve had where ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews have pointed out to me the verses in the OT and the Torah that “teach” that believers are obligated to kill anyone who converts to another religion and anyone who persuades another to do so. Worse, what do we Mormons do when our critics speak of all the violence and bloodshed in the BOM, a book we hold sacred, but one that begins with a decapitation, that begins and ends with the destruction of two great nations, and that contains 180 pages of war and violence, that even include the violent destruction of a third nation? (And, of course, there's that second beheading in Ether.) This same principle applies to another example where we hear how the Quran encourages men to have many wives, with an emphasis on their being virgins Yet what do we do when critics point to our LDS history, point to so-called Mormon polygamists in Utah, Arizona and Texas, and then specifically point to verses in the D&C that “teach” that a Mormon man can have and be “given” up to ten virgins in marriage? In my posts I’ve not really taken sides on what the Cordoba House should do. The fact that I’ve shared facts and a possible alternative argument regarding Obama’s statement does not mean that I necessarily agree with the proposed project or what Obama did. I’ve certainly expressed my opinion as to how insane I think this controversy is and as to whom I believe are responsible for making it such a controversy. I’ve also written about the possible implications of this. I’ve mentioned the problems Mormons and Americans are facing now in the ME because of this controversy. The questions I’ve asked about our attitudes and behavior and how it affects our foreign policy abroad are certainly questions that should be asked along with many others. But I haven’t yet stated whether I actually agree with the proposed project or Obama’s involvement. But these things are simply part of what my focus has been—the role that ignorance is playing in this. I’ve been writing about both ignorance and the related need to know the facts. And in doing so, I’ve been talking about us, not them. The fact that a majority oppose this does not mean that the majority are in possession of the facts. The masses can be just a ignorant as the few. To argue this, as some in our society would, reminds me of the words of Marcus Aurelius that “[t]he opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” I’m also reminded that one of the principal reasons for the US Constitution was to help prevent the passions of a majority from using the federal governemt to trample on the rights and liberties of a minority. We need to remember that America’s founders feared the passions of the masses as much as they feared an imperial presidency. But the reality is this, we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects and to differing degrees. And I believe very much that even the issue of sensitivity to others’ feelings on this particular issue (and even our problems abroad) can be linked to ignorance. You and I, I believe, are on the same page in many ways. We're just approaching this issue from different angles. While you seem to be more focused on how to resolve it, I'm more focused on its root cause. *SEE NY Muslim project spurs support coalition | Reuters

Byotor, don't think I've forgotten about you. I'll be addressing the issue of emotions soon enough. But I'll do it in my own time and in my own way. But for now, I simply say that most of those emotions of anger most Americans seem to feel are rooted in ignorance. Until I'm able to explain better, you're certainly free to assume that I just refuse to get it.

Traveler, regarding your post 107 which was a reply to one of my replies. I have a very similar background to yours, I suspect. But I would like to comment on the following which you wrote: "You are right – Americans should appreciate the gesture. But the majority do not. So what is the will of Allah? A step towards conflict or a step towards peace? And who should take that step first?" My posts have been consistent. As anyone reading them sincerely should note, I'm referring to principles which we as Americans, Christians and Mormons profess to believe in. I'm not talking about ending the conflict. I never have written about ending the conflict. I entered this fray when, based on my experience and employment background, I believed that you had misrepresented Islamic law and had accused Rauf of being a terrorist sympathizer and supporter because of views I myself believe. Yet once I made that post in an attempt to at least show a different side to those two particular issues, you posted a very polite and welcome response, yet it was also one in which you changed tack from Islamic law and Rauf to the need to be sensitive to the families of the victms. Then when I make a post telling you that I appreciated and agreed with much of what you said, you post a new reply talking about who should be responsible for ending the conflict.At this point I confess--I have a hard time keeping up with things. But rest assured that nothing I will say on this thread will ever directly deal with how to end the conflict. That will never be my point. Contrary to Byotor's accusations of my sounding sanctimonious and elitist, I do not have the wisdom of Solomon, and I freely admit my ignorance on many topics. But I also choose my battles carefully and refuse to enter something about which I know little. I will say, however, that because I believe that the root of this national controversy is the ignorance of most Americans regarding Islam, Muslims, and the doings of our own government, an ignorance which I've pointed out is simply meant to refer to a lack of knowledge, I do believe that this would not have become the controversy it is if people had been better informed. Now, if you'll excuse me (I hope you understand a bit of my sense of humor here), the sanctimonious and elitist side of me begs me to attend once more to Byotor's comments and accusations.

While I had another post ready today regarding what you wrote in one of your more recent posts, Byotor, I would prefer addressing something you wrote in your very first post. When you began the thread, you mentioned that while you tended to agree with Obama’s statement, you believed that perhaps Obama should have distanced himself from this issue. On both these points I agree. However, on another level, I believe that Obama had no choice but to express his views on this issue. Indeed, one can make a good argument that Obama had not only the right but the duty to speak out. In fact, Obama, on a national level, was the only one who should have spoken out. All other politicians, Republican or Democrat, should have been the ones to distance themselves. In saying this, I include Reid as well as Romney, Palin, Gingrich, and Giuliani. Perhaps it just goes to show that we’re truly living in times when the wisdom of our wise men has perished. Let me preface my thoughts as to why Obama perhaps should have spoken out by reminding all of us of our very recent history. From 9/11 until the day Obama took office, the White House and the Congress were controlled by Republicans. During those years, the American Right and the neocons were quick to accuse any and all critics of the Bush administration and its policies of undermining the president, aiding and abetting terrorists, causing national disunity at a time of war, not supporting the troops, putting the lives of the troops in jeopardy, being un-American, and even treason. With this reminder of what Republicans of those years were saying as preface, let me now explain why on one level an argument can be made that Obama had the right and duty to speak out. Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, spoke the other day on this very issue: “A president not only serves Muslim citizens, not only commands Muslims in the American military but also leads a coalition that includes Iraqi and Afghan Muslims who risk death each day fighting Islamic radicalism at our side. How could he possibly tell them that their place of worship inherently symbolizes the triumph of terror?” I would also remind us that both the Bush and Obama administrations have attempted, as part of US policy, to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, both at home and abroad, and especially in those lands in which US troops are currently fighting. Whether we like it or not, Obama is now president. He is also the commander-in-chief of the military in a time of war. As president of a nation that includes citizens who are Muslim, the president has the duty to promote national unity. As commander-in-chief during a time of war, the president has a duty to promote unity in the ranks, preserve a coalition that consists of Muslim troops, and show Muslims worldwide, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this is not a war against Islam. If Obama, as president and as commander-in-chief, were to do otherwise, we would all be quick to condemn him for dereliction of duty, for failing to do what he is obligated to do. No one else among the Democratic and Republican leadership has this duty and responsibility. Not one. Representatives such as Reid and Romney and wannabes such as Palin and Newt do not have this duty. Yet now that Republicans are on the out, Republicans--at least among US congressional representatives, wannabe politicians, and opinion leaders-seem to be marching by the beat of a different drummer. Now it’s OK to criticize and undermine a president; now it’s OK to criticize this administration’s policies; and, more to the point, now it’s OK to create national disunity during a time of war. In fact, one could—by using the Republicans’ own standards during the Bush years—accuse these Republicans of whom I speak of endangering the troops, undermining the war efforts, and expanding a “War on Terrorism” into a “War on Islam,” thus helping OBL make his point that America despises Islam. Obama’s words did not turn this into a national hot-button issue. That had already been done by Republicans both before and after Obama’s remarks. All anyone needs to do is compile a timeline. A good source to start, where the details can be independently corroborated, would be a Salon.com article which shares the following-- Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba House project. It quotes Imam Rauf who, speaking of the proposed project, states, “We want to push back against the extremists.” Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor’s office, support the idea. The mother of one of the 9/11 victims also supports it. The FBI states the Imam Rauf has worked the FBI. Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, as a guest-host on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” Ingraham states, “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with [the Cordoba project].” At the end of the interview, Ingraham states, “I like what you’re trying to do.” May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by the NYC community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of the 9/11 victims, who offer differing opinions. Meanwhile, Robert Murdoch’s New York Post runs another story with the inaccurate headline, “Panel Approves ‘WTC’ Mosque.” Conservative Pamela Geller, whose blog is Atlas Shrugs, entitles her post that day, “Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center.” In that post she writes, “This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is not accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem.” (Geller is the one who also asserted that Obama’s father was really Malcolm X.) May 7, 2010: Geller’s group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches “Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!” (SIOA’s director is Robert Spencer who makes his living speaking of the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for everyone on the community board and encourages people to write. The board chair later states that they receive “hundreds and hundreds” of calls and e-mails. May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA’s first protest against the “911 monster mosque” for May 29, a day specifically chosen to mark that terrible day of “May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces . . . broke through the Byzantine defenses . . .” of Constantinople. New York Times columnist Andrea Peyser writes in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that “there are better places to put a mosque.” May 13, 2019: Peyser does a follow-up column entitled “Mosque Madness at Ground Zero.” This article is critical because it’s the first actual newspaper article that mirrors what Geller has been writing in her blog and saying all along. In fact, Peyser quotes Geller at length and also promotes the efforts of the SIOA to stop the “mosque.” From this point on what should have been and remained a local issue ballooned into a national controversy, dwarfing all other issues. The Salon.com article states in its conclusion, “Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.” Now we can argue back and forth about Salon.com’s article or the website itself. I simply share its timeline because it’s a convenient place to start to do one’s homework, to ask questions and to dig for answers. But my point is not the timeline. Rather, my point in sharing the timeline is to show that this was already a national controversy when Obama spoke out the evening of August 13, 2010, at a dinner celebrating the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. After all, on June 10, 2010, a month after Peyser’s “Mosque Madness” article and two months prior to Obama’s statement, Giuliani was on the Jeff Katz radio show where he went on record saying that the project was a “desecration.” July 18, 2010, one month after Giuliani’s remarks and a month before Obama’s, Palin sent out her “refudiate” tweet (which she slightly edited later), which became public knowledge by July 19 when it was reported widely by the mainstream media. Gingrich’s Muslim “triumphalism” and Nazism remarks didn’t come until the day after Obama’s statements. But remember, the primary point of this post is that a good argument can be made that if anyone on the national level should have spoken out o n this national controversy, it should have been Obama because of the responsibilities his offce entails. No one else has his responsibilities, at home or abroad. No one else should have spoken out, before or after, especially in an attempt for political gain prior to upcoming elections. The Republicans, in my estimation, should have followed the precedent and standards they themsevles set during the Bush Administration. To do otherwise is utter hypocrisy. And for better or worse, the Republican Party own this controversy, what it becomes, and the damage it does. I trust that anyone who reads this knows that I’m not accusing all Republicans for what I see as hypocritcal behavior on the part of many Republicans, who say one think while doing another and who use the tactics of a demogague in their thirst for political and personal gain. I trust you know whom and what I’m referring to. PS Did I ever tell anyone on this site that the greatest threat you face in Saudi is the possibility of dying from the sheer lack of boredom? This site certainly lessens that possibilty!

Traveler, I agree very much with your most recent reply to what I posted. But when it comes to intent, don't we have to trust people in the same way we expect others to trust us? Don't we have to basically take people at their word instead of twisting it into something else? Or do we choose to live by different standards, one standard that applies to "us", and another for 1.6 billiion Muslims because of the acts of 19 individuals? Do we really have the ability to judge the intent of another? Cordoba House is an American group of Muslims; Rauf has worked with both the Bush and Obama administrations; and his wife is on an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. When we cry for moderate Muslims to step forward and they do, look what we do. We accuse them of being essentially no better than the 19 men who were directly responsible for 9/11? Americans and Christians were not the only ones who died there. As I wrote, it's an act of self-absorption to believe that American Christians were the only ones who suffered. Regarding the supposed sacred nature of the site I'll address in a later post, but I don't accept for a minute that this is the reason for the controversy. Moreover, it's wrong to continue to speak of this as a mosque, which it is not. It perpetuates a falsehood. The proposal was for an interfaith community center that happens to contain a prayer room in it for Muslims. But worse, this anger and hysteria is now spreading to the point where people don't want mosques anywhere near them as well. Ater all, isn't your home sacred even though no one has yet died there? But I'm not really talking about the masses here. I'm talking about ignorance which is the result of failing to do our homework on the one hand and being continually manipulated through lies, deceit , and propaganda from those in positions of power and influence on the other.

No, problem, Urban. Or no hay problema. Or ma fi mushkala. Mine are always like book chapters so I really don't expect anyone to read it. It just gives me a chance to put in my two cents worth!

Yes, I'm back. Sorry for the length, but complex issues cannot be easily addressed in a few lines. At least by me. For this, my apologies. Let me say upfront that while I some of the first posts troubling, I’m actually impressed by what some have said here. Please don’t think that the thoughts I now share are directed at you. While I could name those I’ve been impressed with, I wish to say that I particularly appreciated your comments, Yatiri, especially those concerning Imam Rauf. The Cordoba House project, which everyone is inaccurately referring to as the mosque at ground zero in Manhattan, is actually a proposed $100 million dollar interfaith community center that would be located two blocks from ground zero. But these are two NYC blocks. If you’ve ever been to Manhattan, you know full well that we’re not talking about Nephi, Provo, or SLC blocks. The site is about 500 feet from ground zero, almost the length of two football fields. It cannot be seen from ground zero, and even if it could be seen, no one would recognize it as a mosque given its design and what it contains. The term mosque is being used heavily by right-wing conservatives and others for political gain in a midterm election year and prior to the presidential election. And the rank-and-file just go right along. The use of the word conjures up an image of a traditional free-standing, domed mosque with a tall minaret, which is completely unlike what Cordoba House has proposed. Using the term mosque is done for different reasons by different people. First, we use it because of our ignorance. I use the term ignorance as it should be used, to define a lack of knowledge. I am not trying to put anyone done. Yet our lack of knowledge derives from a lack of effort to search out the facts of what’s really been proposed and why. We either don’t have the time or we lack the desire to do the homework. Secondly, people are forced to use the term as way of communicating with others who wouldn’t know what you’re referring to if you used a different word. However, this still results in an inaccurate and inappropriate use of a word that contributes to the ignorance that already exists in the minds of many. Lastly, we intentionally use the term mosque to conjure up the traditional image of a mosque because in doing so the issue then becomes a combustible mix in the minds of those who think Islam is inherently evil and in the minds of the average American who, for whatever reason, see Islam as a whole as an enemy and that on 9/11 a over a billion Muslims attacked us, not 19 men who just so happened to be Muslim. Yes, it’s a 12- to 13-story structure, depending on who you read. But that’s nothing in Manhattan, where the streets are dwarfed by all the structures that rise side-by-side to pierce the sky, thus turning each street into a veritable man-made canyon where the rising and setting sun is almost never seen over a natural horizon. When you think of it in this in this way, you realize that the proposed center is essentially two canyons from ground zero. It is neither on top of ground zero or next door overshadowing the “holy ground.” Muslims are already praying on the site where this community center is projected to be built. This part of Manhattan is full of Muslims. Formerly, police cordoned off a section of the street to for the main Friday prayer. Now Muslims pray in a narrow, crowded basement below a night club. The proposed center would look nothing like a mosque, as previously noted. It would be a multiple-story glass and steel tower with straight lines, 90 degree angles, and no crescent moon and star anywhere on the façade. It’s modeled after a typical YMCA and would include a swimming pool, a fitness center, basketball court, a performing arts center, meeting rooms, a food court and restaurants, a bookstore, art exhibits, and a 500-seat movie theater. (Sorry, but this is nothing like any of the mosques I’ve seen in the ME!) And yes, it would have a quiet place for Muslims to pray. But even the place for them to pray is not even close to what we think of as a mosque. Rather, it’s a prayer room similar to what you find at some of our airports. And yes the site was chosen intentionally. First, it was located there as an interfaith center for the community with the hopes it would help bridge the chasm between faiths. Secondly, it provides the numerous Muslims who work in this area a quiet place to pray in a busy city. Downtown Manhattan was chosen because it “suits their needs because it is well-connected by transportation and has a large concentration of jobs there.” (It’s near Wall Street.) According to Professor Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic studies at Columbia, “The downtown place is perfect because it would be a hub for the people of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and if you work downtown it’s a great place to pop in for noon prayers . . . ” No insult was meant, no slap in the face intended. When a man does evil, we hold him accountable for the evil he’s done. But we should not impute evil to a man who does good. We do not condemn him, his family, his neighbors, his nation, or his religion. A man is to be held accountable for his own sins. Blaming the innocent for the acts of a few is un-Christian and should be un-American. If we want this privilege for ourselves, we must accord it to others. Moreover, we have a duty to defend others when they are falsely accused and misjudged, if for no other reason than perhaps someday we might want others to come to our aid when we are treated in like manner. If we do not treat others in the way in which we wish and expect to be treated, then it’s hypocritical for us to complain about how others are mistreating us. Muslims pray in the Pentagon chapel, about 80 feet from where Pentagon employees were killed in 9/11. No one has complained. And the truth is that far more Muslims have lost their lives because of the terrorist acts of a small minority of Muslims than Americans have. Yet in this present exercise in self-absorption by many Americans we think and act as though we are the only victims. In truth, most of those (not all) who oppose this mosque by claiming Muslims need to be sensitive to the families of the victims are not doing so because of their sensitivity for the victims’ families. They’re simply dressing up their hate for Muslims in the respectable garb of sensitivity. For those of us who are sincere, we need to remember that the victims of 9/11 were not all Christian and American. There were Muslim victims of 9/11 just as Muslims numbered among the police, paramedics, firefighters and others trying to save people that day. And while I understand why some sincerely believe that Muslims should be more senstive to "our feelings," we should also be sensitve to theirs. After all, when we say "our" feelings, who does "our" refer to? Many, perhaps most, of these Muslims in NYC who would like a place to pray in Manhattan are American citizens. (There were actually Muslims America at the time of the Revolution.) Do we really wish to say that if you're Christian American you're truly one of us, but if you're Muslim American you're somehow not one of us? Then there are those who fear that any mosque near ground zero is dangerous. Yet we need to think of logical conclusion of this line of thought, which has now begun to sweep the country. For if a mosque is too dangerous there then what makes it safe in my neighborhood? Maybe we could herd them onto reservations like we did the Indians, where we can force them to dress like us, give them names like us, force them to cut their hair like us, and convert them to Christianity. Perhaps we could treat them like the Japanese during WW II and put them holding pens where we can watch them. Or maybe we can simply force them to leave the country as we did to the about 350,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who were citizens, during the Great Depression. No mosques, no Muslims (American or otherwise), no problem. This will make America a safer nation, a purer people. (Of course, this then means that we’re more like many of those in Germany in the 1930s than we care to admit.) Most on this site would agree that any of these steps would be wrong, and rightly so. Yet using the fear-of-mosques card naturally leads to such a conclusion. This fear, however, is rooted in ignorance, which can be overcome if people are willing to study and do their homework and not listen to all the different voices in the world with all the hidden agendas those voices have. For 9 years many fellow members of my faith have told me that we need to invade Muslim lands to spread the gospel, the Good News, or as it was called in the Greek NT, "The Way." (Sounds like a “forced conversion” to me!) Many Americans believe that Muslim lands need democracy such as we have. But as a Mormon and an American who lives and works in the Middle East I would ask this--how can we honestly tell Muslim countries that we want a democracy for them when we won’t allow them to experience it here in any form other than what amounts to mob rule based on people’s ignorance, raw-emotions, and runaway passions? How can we expect them to eagerly fight alongside our troops in a war on terrorism when they know how much we despise them and their religion? While it’s not politically correct to lynch blacks anymore, Muslims seem to be the new blacks on the block. Yet Muslims across the world are watching us and are very much attuned to what we’re saying and doing about the proposed Cordoba House project. Yet they have problems hearing what we say about all the good America has to offer the Muslim world when what we do rings so loudly in their ears. For my fellow Mormons, this current debate reminds me of Alma’s words to his son Corianton. While doing missionary work among the Zoramites, Corianton committed acts that undermined the missionary effort. Alma tells his son, “Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain and foolish thing . . . how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.” This “mosque” issue is trivial and should have never become a national controversy. It’s been blown completely out of proportion by politicians, the media, the internet, and fear and ignorance masquerading as informed opposition. Such conduct as I’ve seen by many Americans, many Mormons included, are not helping us in the ME—these attitudes and this conduct are not helping move the gospel or positive American values/principles forward among the Muslim people. I would have thought that given our history as a church that we Mormons, of all people, would realize that what has happened to us has also happened, and continues to happen, to Muslims, and it’s all done for the same reasons. Evidently, however, some of us have not learned this lesson since our attitudes toward Muslims are hauntingly similar to those of critics and detractors of Mormonism. And were America’s founding fathers alive today, I suspect that they would say the same thing to us that Alma said to his son. In essence, as a nation we need to stop whining, quit dressing our hatred or ignorance up in the respectable garb of sensitivity, stop being offended when no offense was intended, live what Christianity teaches, diligently apply those decent and wise values/principles our nation was founded on, and get on with life.

Wow, what a minefield to weigh in on! I almost hate to share my two cents worth given how polarizing things seem to be. While I will share more later when I have more time to think through what I'd like to say, I would like to share a few thoughts first with what Traveler shared in his post #82. And while I hate to disagree, Traveler, I do on a number of points you made. But first let me say that Feisel Abdul Rauf, the radical imam of the proposed Ground Zero "Muslim mosque" project has just arrived in neighboring Bahrain, whose lights I can see at night as I look out my window in lovely eastern Saudi Arabia. This is actually his fourth US-government sponsored trip to the area as a representative of US State Department. (In 2007 he was here twice with Karen Hughes during the Bush adminstration.) His involvement actually begun under the Bush adminstration when he was asked to be part of the administraton to be part of the administration's efforts to promote interfaith tolerance. (Evidently, we were worried more about tolerance abroad than in the US!) Beginning in 2006, he worked with Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush, and they were worked together to show Muslims abroad that the so-called war on terrorism was not a war on Islam. He's been working with the US government ever since, including with the FBI. While he's not here in the ME to raise money for the proposed "mosque," he is making money, lots of money from the poor US taxpayers. Just think of it--the estimated cost of the entire trip is $16,000 US. And he gets a whopping $200/day honorarium plus! (Of course, tha't's below standard federal government per diems for expenses and lodging wherein the maximum per diem for US government employees is $396 for Bahrain, $341 for Qatar, and $496 for Abu Dhabi in the UAE.) Of course, on top of this $200 per diem he gets his airfare paid for. It's an outright shame that he's making such good money at taxpayer expense while here on an effort by the US government to discuss Muslim life in America and to promote religious tolerance as well. Of course, when Muslims here read and hear about all the flak over the 'mosque' that Muslims in the States are receiving, they might think twice about the truth of what he's saying. But heh, what can he expect. After all, he is a Muslim, and he would like to see a "mosque" built near our holy ground. What could he possibly be thinking when he'd like to see a "mosque" that would be built right next to bars, escort services and massage parlors that are also near that sacred spot? I'll tell you, Muslims are truly insane and insensitive to our sense of sacredness. But now back to Traveler's points. Again, my apologies, Traveler, for doing this, but I'm not really writing to you specifically. Rather, I'm directing my thoughts to others. It's just that your thoughts triggered mine. First, I don't know where you're gettng your information about Shari'a's (Islamic Law) mandating that Muslims must protect a known terrorist from unbelievers if he's in a mosque. First of law, Shari'a outlaws such things as terrorism. Islam itself forbids the killing of the innocent. Secondly, given there are four schools of Islamic Law, which school are you saying legalizes such behavior, i.e., protecting a known terrorist as long as he's in a mosque? Lastly, Islam teaches something akin to what the LDS Church teaches in that Muslims are supposed to obey the laws of the the land in which they live. Hence, if a known terrorist were in a mosque in the US and law enforcement arrived with a warrent to detain that individual (which by the way, law enforcement does not now need), Muslims within the mosque would be duly bound by Islam to let law enforcement arrest the individual. You also mention that Rauf is a sympathizer, in the first instance, and a supporter, in the second, of the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. First, it perhaps needs to be pointed out that Rauf is a Sufi Muslim. While Sufis can be either Sunni or Shi'a, Sufis emphasize the spiritual nature of Islam's teachings rather than strict rituals. And of all the strains of Islam, Sufis are the most peaceful and non-jihadist Muslims you can find. Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, is a member of an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the memorial, said, "The idea of a cultural center that strengthens ties between Muslims and people of all faiths and backgrounds is positive." (By the way, there were Muslim Americans who were also victims of 9/11.) In any event, Rauf has dedicated his career to interfaith understanding. While this forum is too complicated to get into Hamas and its two wings, it's a terrorist organization because Israel and the US currently lisit as such. Of course, we refuse to actually define terrorism, which makes things complicated politically and legally. And the US is well known for defining anyone who it doesn't like as terrorist. We use being listed as a terrorist organization or state as one of the many weapons in our arsenal. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason as to how we brand different groups as terrorist. And even when we do list them, some we ignore and others we go after. But let's say that Hamas are ipso facto or universally self-evident a terrorist organization, what threat do they pose for the US? None. Their beef is, and always has been, with Israel, who created them. Now, of course, when we choose to give Israel a blank check, condone all Israel does, and arm Israel to the teeth, then one could say that Hamas might be viewed as a concern of the US. But their focus is Israel, not the US, just as the Basque independence groups' focus is Spain and the IRA's was the UK. But if Rauf is guilty of sympathizing and supporting (they are not the same), then all of Ireland, my ancestral land, is guilty of the same because almost all Irish are sympathetic to the mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Isreali government. The Irish didn't like what the Brits were doing to them in Ireland anymore than the Palestinians, including Hamas, like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, many of whom, ironcally, are Christian. And given that Ireland is predominantly Catholic, maybe we use that to prevent Catholics in America from buildng too close to Ground Zero as well. Of course, this creates a problem for me because as an Irish American I could have been labeled a terrorist sympathizer up into the 1990s given that I wanted the British out of Northern Ireland as well. But so did most other Irish Americans, none of whom were Muslim. Of course, the Reagan and Clinton adminstrations infuriated the British government because our government refused to crack down on all the support the IRA was receiving from American Catholic charities. In fact, most of the world's support for the IRA came from NYC and Boston. While the UK and the US State Dept listed the IRA as a terrorist organization, the US federal governement just turned a blind eye to all the support we Americans were giving to the IRA. (It's a good thing the Irish weren't Muslim--otherwise, many would have considered it a war between Irish Muslims and English Christians.) And I'd bet my botton dollar that if the UK had been the lone superpower then as the US is now, the UK would have put the US on their list of of state sponsors of terrorism. Lastly, I agree with Rauf's view that US foreign policy is the single most important cause of 9/11. And yes, I know very well that this is considered heresy in my home country where most prefer to believe in feel-good fables that are constantly spoon fed to us. The reality is that the US enjoys telling everyone else what to do and we thrive on meddling in other nations' internal affairs. Lord Acton was right that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And of all the nations on earth todya, none comes closer to having absolute power than the US. We take pride in our Constitution, yet its principles stop at our borders (assuming we even live them in the US anymore), and other nations are faced with a raw power that's unchecked by the Constitution of which we boast. Take our hatred for Iran. This hatred has been going on since 1979, which is where our history of the struggle begins. But Iranian history goes back much earlier, to 1953, when we helped organize a coup which overthrough a democratically elected prime minister and our CIA helped create SAVAK which was more brutal for the Iranians than the KGB was for those under the Soviets. Or take the Taliban themselves, who we in part created to get rid of the Soviets. We, along with the Saudis, scoured the ME for he most radical Muslims we could find to train and use against the Soviets. Then when we left, they essentially took over the chaos we left behind. The point is that we could have done so much better if we had just listened to Washington and Jefferson--entangling alliances with none and neutral relations with all. I'm afraid, however, that we've become like the Jews who boasted to Christ that they were the sons of Abraham. Christ's reply was simple, if they were the sons of Abraham, they'd be doing the works of Abraham, but that God could raise up the true sons of Abraham from stones. Which again reminds me of the Irish stake president's wife telling me that most Irish view Americans as they view the Pharisiees. Rauf sees how complicated things are with Hamas and the Palestinians; it's certianly not as simplistic as we like to make it. Does that make him a supporter of terrorism? Evidently the Bush adminstration didn't think so. And they knew of his views from 9/11 on. It doesn't make him a supporter of terrorism anymore than I'm a supporter of terrorism. Ironically, it was Rauf who said that building an Islamic center there in NYC would send "the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11" and that he wanted "to push back against the extremists." Good thoughts, regardless of ones religion.

Thanks for saying my post was insightful, Bl8tant. Here I thought I was just rambling! Also, thanks for the link ot the article you shared--I very much appreciate it.

Thanks to MightyNancy for having the courage to write what you did. Many of us act as though smoking is somehow more serious than everything else we're asked in a temple recommend interview. To the points MightyNancy mentioned, let's add being honest in all our dealing with our fellow man. I suspect that a lot of us who take pride in the fact that we don't smoke are much less than honest in all of our dealings with others. Of course, then there's the pride she mentioned, being proud that we don't smoke. Then, too, gossipping is alive and well, something we rarely think about, and yet the damage done to others by our gossping is far greater than anything smoking can do--gossping destroys names, reputations, and a person's feeling comfortable among us at Church where all of us sin and fall short of what is expected of us. I also think of all those good Mormons in Utah who are very much addicted to OTC drugs. Didn't one of the last women's conference addresses point out that in Utah there were more deaths annually due to OTCs than auto accidents? As I reflect on what MightyNancy pointed out, I'm trying to think of who it was who said that said that it would be nice if all our sins smelled as sweet as cigarette smoke. The point is whether a person is trying to do what's right, whether they are moving in the right direction. We all stumble and fall and have to pick ourselves up again. My father had a terrible time trying to conquer his addiction to nicotine. When he became a member later in life, he thought he had it licked. But periodically, when under great amounts of stress, the old temptation came back and he succumbed to his weakness in those times of stress. When a family member died in his companionship, he blamed himself and became depressed. And his smoking returned when he needed to calm his nerves. He kept attending church and willingly did everything he was asked. And he was honest to a fault. He was the first one to be there to help another. But his smoking was his Achilles heel. Quite often during this time, he'd get dressed up to go to church and before he'd go with us, he'd sneak out to have a smoke to calm his nerves. It was hard on us who'd been raised otherwise. But what was harder was to see how fellow members avoided him or wouldn't sit next to him at church because they could smell the smoke on him. The home teacher asked the bishop to give him some kind of calling in hopes it would help him out of his depresson, but the bishop refused. Things changed when a new bishop was called, but I can't say that my father was really ever able to completely conquer his addiction. It caused problems between my parents for years. Then one day my mother realized that they both had a weakness -- while he smoked to calm his nerves, she turned to Paxil. Now that my father is gone, my mother lives daily with the regrets of all the flak she gave my father because of his smoking, and she looks back on all the ways she could have handled the situation better. As a non-member, my father was a far better Mormon than most Mormons I know. He continued to be so after he was baptized. But to the day he died, his Achilles heel was certainly that old habit he had developed in his youth and had a hard time breaking. What really matters is whether your husband is trying, not whether he's arrived. My advice is simple, something that's been mentioned here already in a number of ways. Talk with your husband. After all, you know him and the situation far better than anyone here. After you've spokien with him, you might feel that you should talk with you bishop. But be aware that even bishops have different views even on this. And yet he is your bishop, and he is the one you should talk to if you feel the need. Whatever you do, don't listen to all of us giving you our two cents worth, which isn't worth much really. On something like this, we're just likely to muddy the waters. Worse, if you listen to us and make a decision based on some of our advice, you may end up doing something you'll live to regret in the years ahead.

A related question to Hordak's question--I've read and heard that women in the US sometimes feel pressured from other women into doing a away with bangs or long hair after they reach a certain age, say 40 or so. As you answer Hordak's question, could you also think of this as well since it does involve short, or shorter hair, on women?