Knowledge is better than ignorance . . .

There is precisely one sense in which it is possible for me to "like" a news article that explains how the massacre at Srebrenica was, through at best wilful blindness and at worst malice aforethought, allowed to occur by the UN in general and the UK and the US in particular. Namely that it is better to know than to remain in doubt.

It was clear at the time that the UN "safe areas" had become nothing of the sort. It was also soon clear that "something bad" had happened when Srebrenica had been overrun by the Serbs. The magnitude of what happened has become clear over the years as the count of recovered bodies of the victims have mounted. Now, the long suspected if not understood but relatively unspoken "why" has been laid out for all to read.

It is good to see comprehensive descriptions and analyses of what and why Srebrenica was allowed to occur. It is even better that confirmation of what was often "wondered at" by many has been published while many of those involved in the decision making process are still alive.

How Britain and the US decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate (article by Florence Hartmann and Ed Vulliamy in The Guardian July 4, 2015)

Le sang de la realpolitik - L'affaire Srebrenica (about to be published eBook by Florence Hartmann; referenced in the above referenced article)

FLORENCE HARTMANN GUILTY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH (as if the world needed it, yet another demonstration of what happens to whistleblowers)

Srebrenica_massacre (Wikipedia's article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Srebrenica massacre (Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Serbia asks Russia to veto UN resolution that calls Srebrenica massacre ‘genocide’ (article by "Staff" on the GlobalNews.ca site July 4, 2015)

Army of God?

I happen to believe that the vast majority of people, irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs, are peaceful law-abiding members of their society. The risk that they will plan or participate in a terrorist attack is essentially zero.

The reason that I believe this is really quite simple - if the vast majority of people were not peaceful law-abiding members of their society then the world would exist in a state of near total chaos. I'm not talking about a couple of newsworthy attacks a week. I'm talking about nearly continuous widespread major terrorist events occurring all over the world on an essentially continuous basis. There would be literally hundreds of major attacks per day where a major attack would be defined as an attack killing at least 1,000 people. The human civilization all over the world would simply collapse into a state far far worse than the Dark Ages.

Since human civilization has obviously not collapsed and is in fact thriving by most measures, the vast majority of people, irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs, must be peaceful law-abiding members of their society.

What we do have is formal and informal groups of people all over the world who, for various reasons, have decided to "go rogue". More accurately, they have decided to attack those whom they perceive as being their oppressors (note that it does not matter whether or not those that they attack actually are their oppressors - all that is required to create the situation we see in the world today is that a relatively modest number of groups of people are attacking who they perceive to be their oppressors).

We do indeed live in interesting times . . .

Army of God? Here are 6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups you never hear about (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/army-of-god-here-are-6-modern-day-christian-terrorist-groups-you-never-hear-about/)

What's on the other side of the ocean?

This is a seriously cool map. It shows what you would 'see' if you could see the first major land mass directly east or directly west from the shores of North America.  I particularly like the 'view' from Argentina and southern Chile.

Click through on the link below for a larger version.

Map by Eric Odenheimer (I've not been able to chase down the actual original posting and I'm not at all sure which Eric Odenheimer is actually responsible for the map).

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57677/whats-other-side-ocean?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=atlasobscura

The US religious right's use and abuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's legacy

You have probably never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer so a quick biography is in order (Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if you want a more detailed biography).

Bonhoeffer was a Christian pastor in Germany before and during the Second World War. He found the Nazis and their acts to be so offensive that he participated in the German Resistance. He was imprisoned by the Nazis in April of 1943 where he remained until he was tried and executed/murdered on 9 April 1945 for his association with participants of the 20 July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler (the same one that the relatively recent movie Valkyrie staring Tom Cruise popularized).

Bonhoeffer studied and taught at the Union Theological Seminary in New York in the early 1930s. He found the progressive institution's stance less than satisfying, once stating "There is no theology here". His views on the US fundamentalist Christian theology of the era were not exactly flattering either as he accused the Southern Baptists of preaching “the crassest orthodoxy…an unrelenting harshness in holding on to one’s possessions, possessions either of this or of the other world.”

The US religious right has recently been invoking the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Their claim is essentially that Bonhoeffer's decision to risk death by participating in the German resistance is an exemplar which justifies the use of deadly force to resist the "imposition" of gay marriage on the US Christian community.

Bonhoeffer died resisting the Nazi regime which was not only responsible for launching the deadliest war in human history but also embarked on a program of industrialized murder to "deal with" their opponents and anyone else that they happened to not like (see Nazi concentration camp badges for more info).

That the US religious right could somehow create a parallel between their strong opposition to gay marriage and Bonhoeffer' decision to participate in the German Resistance during the Second World War truly boggles the mind. Then again, there is little that the US religious right does these days which doesn't boggle the mind . . .

Some sources and references are probably in order:

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
• Nazi concentration camp badges  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
• Why This Pastor Who Tried To Assassinate Hitler Has Become A Hero To The Anti-LGBT Movement http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/14/3646532/conservatives-comparing-anti-lgbt-crusade-pastors-attempt-assassinate-hitler/

Why the Crown has invoked Justin Bieber in the Mike Duffy trial

The Justin Bieber reference was used by the Crown to make an important point. The Canadian Constitution requires that Senators meet certain qualifications including that they be at least 30 years old and residents of the province that they are appointed to represent. The witness was recently retired Senate law clerk Mark Audcent (a recognized expert in Canadian constitutional law as it applies to the Senate). Crown attorney Mark Holmes asked Mr. Audcent the following question:

“If the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appointed Justin Bieber to the Senate tomorrow, would he become 30?”

Mr. Audcent replied "Of course not". The implication being that someone does not "magically" become a resident of a province just because the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints that person to the Senate as a representative of said province. Mr. Holmes is obviously building a case for the proposition that Mike Duffy was not qualified to represent PEI as a Senator because his appointment to the Senate as a representative of PEI violated the Canadian Constitution.

The Prime Minister who appointed Mike Duffy would, of course, be none other than the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Based on the above testimony and other testimony by Mr. Audcent over the past couple of days, Mr. Holmes would seem to be well on his way towards establishing this point.

According to Wikipedia, Stephen Harper made the following solemn oath when he was sworn in as Prime Minister:

"I, (name), do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (or declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God."

I have a feeling that this will not be the last time during this trial that Prime Minister Harper is revealed to have at least arguably if not actually violated his oath of office (pay particular attention to the word "trust" in the above oath).

Sidebar: It is true that people have been appointed to the Senate to represent various far flung provinces even though the Senate appointees have lived for many many years outside of their home provinces. The difference between what happened with Mike Duffy and what happened with Pamela Wallin vs these appointments from the past is that those being considered for appointment to the Senate in the past for provinces that they were no longer residents of were apparently told to move back to their home provinces and live there long enough to establish residency. Once residency had been established, the Prime Minister of the day would advise the Governor-General to appoint them to the Senate. In other words, these other Prime Ministers understood that they were bound by the Constitution - an understanding that Prime Minister Harper apparently does not share with his predecessors.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crown-invokes-justin-bieber-in-mike-duffy-trial/article23882827/

The new Indiana religious freedoms law really is both 'different' and troubling

The attached article provides an excellent explanation of what makes the new Indiana religious freedom law really quite different than the US federal religious freedom law and the other US state-level religious freedom laws.

In summary (read the article for important details), the new Indiana religious freedom law is different in two important ways:

1. the law allows "religious freedom" to be used as a claim or a defence in an action involving only non-governmental parties (i.e. one private party can sue another private party where the party suing claims that its "religious freedoms" have been infringed or a private party being sued by anyone else can argue that its "religious freedoms" are being infringed). All of the other religious freedom laws only apply if at least one of the parties in the lawsuit is a government entity.


2. the Indiana law protects religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 

The first difference is what allows a store to refuse service to a private individual or entity who "offends" the store owner's "religious freedoms" (the obvious current era example would be a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage on the grounds that the store owner's religion prevents them from serving homosexuals). The second difference allows claims or defences based on even somewhat "fringe" religious beliefs to be used in court.

These two aspects of the law should come together to provide all sorts of "entertainment opportunities" for court watchers in the coming months (assuming that the law survives that long in the face of the growing "boycott Indiana" movement).

For example, consider a situation where a store owner is faced with a devout Muslim lady wearing a niqab. Should the store owner refuse to serve the Muslim lady, they could find themselves the target of a lawsuit based on the new Indiana religious freedom law. The Muslim lady would be able to use the law to argue that her religious freedoms have been infringed since her decision to wear a niqab is at least encouraged if not, from her perspective, mandated by her religion. In contrast, the store owner will find it difficult to use the same law to defend their right to refuse service to niqab-wearing Muslim ladies as I doubt that there are many if any religions which prohibit or even discourage on religious grounds the wearing of unusual clothing including clothing which happens to cover one's face. I should add that the store owner may be able to successfully argue that they have an overriding need to be able to identify malfeasants on security camera video should a niqab wearing Muslim lady decide to rob the store.

One last aspect of this situation is also likely to provide even more "entertainment". It is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has long considered the US Constitution's Establishment Clause to prohibit US courts from delving into the question of what a particular person's religious beliefs actually require. For example, there have been various successful attempts to exercise a pastafarian's right to wear a colander on their head during swearing in ceremonies and on their drivers licenses (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747880/Pastafarian-allowed-wear-spaghetti-strainer-head-driving-licence-photo-classed-religious-headgear.html).

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-indianas-new-religious-freedom-law/

Real Christians really are getting persecuted in America these days . . .

(this posting rambles a bit - apologies in advance)

Let's start by getting our terms clearly defined:

• a real Christian is someone who takes all of the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love, seriously; depending on their personality and personal style, a real Christian may practice and/or possibly even teach their faith in a way which makes them really quite exemplar Christians
• a devout Christian is a real Christian who has a deep understanding of their faith
• a pretend Christian is someone who may call themselves Christian but, at best, pays little more than lip service to the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love
• an extremist Christian is a pretend Christian who teaches and/or practices outright evil and hatred (in case it isn't obvious, there is a HUGE gulf between the typical pretend Christian and the typical extremist Christian)

The following article illustrates how real Christians are getting persecuted in America today. Please take the time to read the article before continuing with this blog posting.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/yes-there-is-christian-persecution-in-america-and-heres-what-it-looks-like/

Back so soon? Are you sure that you read the entire article? If not, please click on the link again and read the whole thing. It's pretty short and what follows may not make much sense if you haven't read the article.

The above referenced article is a classic example of what really bugs me about many so-called Christians in America and elsewhere these days. Practically everything that these pretend Christians complain about and practically everything they seem to stand for is absolutely incompatible with the actual teachings of Jesus including, in particular his message of love.

This is not to say or suggest that everyone who calls themselves Christian is a member of this lunatic fringe. I happen to have met and know quite well a fair number of real Christians (at least some of whom are clearly devout Christians) who really do try to take the teachings of Jesus to heart. There are also more than a few real Christians who have become quite prominent (Desmond Tutu and Pope Francis come to mind) if anyone happens to be looking for real world examples. Without exception, they all demonstrate through their words and deeds that the teachings of Jesus includes the notion that a Christian must love their fellow humans including, in particular, their fellow sinners.

And yet . . . when these same real Christians actually try to practice the teachings of Jesus, they often find themselves under attack (dare I say "being persecuted"). These attacks come from a variety of corners including rabid atheists and, of course, fundamentalists of a different religious persuasion. While attacks from these corners often cause the persecuted real Christians anguish and pain, it is the attacks upon them by the pretend Christians which must surely surprise if not actually hurt them the most.

I am not going to claim that all pretend Christians make the sort of attacks on real Christians that are described in the above referenced article. That said, I am going to make the following observations and claims:

1. that extremist Christians are organized and that they exist in sufficiently large numbers in the U.S.* to be a real problem
2. that one could easily argue that extremist Christians are a 'cancer of sorts' on at least the US body of the Christian faith
3. that these extremist Christians are seldom actually challenged by real Christians (no doubt partially because challenging the faith of others is not something that many real Christians seem compelled or even particularly interested in doing)
4. that many if not most of the prominent self-proclaimed Christian voices in the U.S. today are extremist Christians

'nuf said.

* While extremist Christians certainly do exist elsewhere, the magnitude of the extremist Christian phenomenon in the U.S. really does make the situation there "different" somehow.