Texas Faith September 14, 2010

Iam pleased to share my article at Texas Faith, a publication of Dallas Morning News.
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/texas-faith-the-media-and-reli.html

Texas Faith: What religion stories should the media focus on?
William McKenzie/ Editorial Columnist

I'm pleased to announce the participation of two new panelists: Dr. James Denison and interfaith proponent and blogger Mike Ghouse. They will join our team as we move into our third year. Over the next few weeks, we will add a few more panelists, but today I want to welcome Jim and Mike.

Jim long served as pastor at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas. He now is president of the Center for Informed Faith and is a distinguished adjunct professor of religion at Dallas Baptist University. He also is a theologian in residence for Texas Baptists.

Mike presides over the Foundation for Pluralism, is active in the World Muslim Congress and blogs regularly at various sites. He also has been a city commissioner in Carrollton, Texas and serves on the board of the Dallas Peace Center.

You can read more about them on our website later this week. Meanwhile, I know Wayne Slater, Sam Hodges and I look forward to their participation.

Now, onto this week's question:

There has plenty of criticism of the media for the amount of attention paid to Terry Jones, the pastor of the 50-member Florida church who had been planning a Quran-burning until he was talked out of it. Colin Powell typified the questioning of the media when he wondered on ABC's "The View" last week how a guy like Pastor Jones could end up commanding so much attention from the press.

That's a fair question, so let's turn the tables this week, which comes a few days after the anniversary of 9/11. Here's the question for discussion;

If you were a media baron, an editor or a television or radio producer, what religiously-based stories would you focus on?

Read on for numerous responses, many of which conclude that
"sensationalism sells."

KATIE SHERROD,Writer, film producer and progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth

One of the definitions of news is information that is unexpected, unusual and seemingly out of character. Hence, the cliche about "man bites dog" making news when a dog biting a man would not. Because most religions claim to be about love, it makes news when a religious leader starts preaching hate.

The key word here is "leader." One could argue that a pastor of dubious background with a flock of 50 hardly merits that description.

The New York Times has published a thoughtful look at the development of this story. It discusses the role the story of the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, coupled with the 9/11 anniversary and reactions of Muslims overseas, played in decisions about covering the Gainesville pastor. It also details the lengths the more responsible news outlets went to avoid giving the pastor undue attention, and thus, undue influence.

A key sentence in the article is a remark by Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. He said "that the newspaper had 'no policy against publishing things that might offend someone -- lots of people are offended by lots of things -- but we try to refrain from giving widespread offense unless there is some offsetting journalistic purpose. A picture of a burning book contributes nothing substantial to a story about book-burning, so the offense seems entirely gratuitous. The freedom to publish includes the freedom not to publish.'" [Emphasis added]

Having been an editor who made decisions about which stories to cover, I find the question an interesting one. I can remember when the question would have been "Why cover religion at all?"

For the most part, newsrooms did not cover religion in any meaningful way. For decades, George Cornell of the Associated Press was just about the ONLY "religion reporter."

Then in 1986, the San Jose Mercury News pioneered a religion section called "Religion & Ethics." In 1992, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings hired Peggy Wehmeyer away from WFAA-TV, making her the only full-time network religion correspondent.

About that same time, the Dallas News began a whole "Religion" section. Religion coverage was defined as including ethics, morality and "spirituality." The News' section was called "Religion," with "spirituality and values" in smaller type above the section name. Since then, religion coverage has been an integral part of routine news coverage for all general news outlets.

But religion stories are no different from sports stories or political stories. Decisions about which religion stories to cover should be made on the same basis as all other stories:

-- Is it of wide interest? Is there conflict, novelty, or a prominent person involved?
-- Is it based on solid sources?
-- Is it timely?
-- Is it relevant to your community, city, state?
-- Is it put in context?
-- Does it offer anything new -- a new angle to a discussion, a new interpretation? Does it change the status quo in any significant way? Is it "a first", "a last", "an only", or an extraordinary event?
-- Do your readers need or want to know the information?

Religion is like art and politics -- it touches people "where they live" and thus can elicit strong reactions. That makes it even more imperative that the same standards be applied to it as to all other news stories.

DEAL HUDSON, President, Morley Publishing Group and Director, InsideCatholic.com

Colin Powell's comment on "The View" that the threat of Pastor Kevin Jones to burn the Koran should not have attracted so much media attention is not the opinion of a journalist but of a member the D.C. elite who thinks the media should avoid stories he finds personally distasteful.

Journalists cover stories that are new, unique, and culturally significant, whether or not the reporter, or the editor, agrees or disagrees with their point of view. Terry Jones, wacky or not, is one of those stories. There's been entirely too much of an elite attitude displayed in the media, where visibility is being given to what comports with the political viewpoint of the reporter and/or publication, rather than a concentration on what is newsworthy.

JAMES DENISON, President, Center for an Informed Faith, Dallas

During World War II, as our government worried about enemy spies in our midst, Americans were cautioned that "loose lips sink ships." The admonition nearly came true last week, as Gen. Petraeus warned that our troops would be endangered if Terry Jones persisted in his plan to burn the Qur'an.

But what if there had been no media coverage of this threat?

Sensationalism sells. Religiously-based stories possess a heightened ability to enflame passions and encourage extremism. What guidelines might help ensure responsible coverage of such stories in these conflicted times?

First, does the story serve the common good? Americans need to know that Yemen is a new front in our battle against al-Qaeda; do we need to know that the pastor of a 50-member congregation wants to burn the Qur'an? Absent such publicity, would his plan have threatened our troops?

Second, does it encourage understanding or misunderstanding of the faith tradition in question? Coverage of Terry Jones' threats did little to contrast his actions with biblical teaching such as John's exhortation, "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God" (1 John 4:7, NIV). Paul did not burn the idols he found in Athens--he used them as a bridge to the Christian message (Acts 17:22-23). Media coverage should have disclosed the aberrant nature of Jones' theology and behavior.

The Bible teaches us to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15 NLT), considering the consequences of our words before we utter them. We cannot unring a bell.
Marshall McLuhan claimed that "all media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values."

RIC DEXTER, Men's Division Chapter Leader, Nichiren Buddhist Soka Gakkai lay organization

Not that long ago the Dallas Morning News had a religion section. I remember reading in it stories of people who practiced different faiths, and people who practiced their faiths differently. There I found articles covering news relating to difficulties facing different churches or their leaders. I read discussions about abuses in some of them, and about the social and spiritual triumphs of others. When I read the question this week I thought, "There is a place to start."

This forum was born out of that now sadly discontinued section. Many media outlets currently seem to feel that the only "religion" stories worth reporting are those that highlight controversy, those that sensationalize, and those that will sell more paper or airtime. One must ask, is this really a reflection of the values we hold most dear in our society?

I would rather publish stories about the strength people find in their belief system, and about how people have put the wisdom of these teachings into practice in their daily lives. I would publish articles which would inform beliefs, and demonstrate that "If Christ, Abraham, Mohammad and the Buddha were to sit at the same table, they would find much more upon which they agreed than upon which they disagree."

I would also publish the dissenting voices, so the readers could be informed about those areas where there is disagreement. We are not, after all, "just different paths to the same end." An awareness of our different world views would allow us to appreciate that we need not all agree in order to live harmoniously in this world we share.
I would focus on the elements in our lives that create true value.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread."

Ever since John Swinton, of the New York Times uttered those words in the last century, discussions among media barons have continued about the nature of their business.

Every aspect of a society continues to seek its own equilibrium; the once abusive capitalism is on the course of self-correction and blissfully moving towards responsible investments.

From a journalism point of view, unconscionably, we have accepted the inclusion of sensationalists and propagandists as journalists. They are generating ratings and revenues for the media barons. I believe this aspect of destructive propaganda journalism will also start correcting itself toward responsible journalism, which can restore the social cohesion of our society. This week's topic for the Texas Faith panel is an indication of such a movement.

The media in Dallas has acted responsibly this week, when Pastor Jeffress made incendiary remarks about Islam, whether one agrees or not. Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News took on the responsibility to seek another opinion from some one like Pastor Bob Roberts. Blow offered an equally powerful, but peace making perspective, which the public has welcomed.

Whether it is Pastor Jones, Jeffress, Phelps or Robertson, the media has failed to nail down the exact words or phrases that cause them to make such divisive declarations, and the unfinished business is frustrating the public. The real issue is not the amount of coverage but the quality of coverage.

As a media baron, I would consider leading the torch of responsible journalism by addressing the moderate majority. It is untapped, but the biggest niche in the marketplace. Moderates are crying out loud for the media to be fair, just and responsible. On the other hand, they need to reward the change and move away from the idea of "No news is good news" and instead, read and watch the good news and not discount it as "no news."

CYNTHIA RIGBY, W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Here's my explicit answer to the question: how about putting some legs under the story of a small church Minnesota pastor (Gordon Stewart) who had a Muslim read from the Qu'ran in worship this past Sunday?

I know about this because I am currently in Minneapolis, teaching and preaching at the Presbytery of the Twin Cities. From what I can gather, Stewart's vision and approach have contributed a great deal to the healing of anxieties and the restoration of hope.

Here's what else I want to say about the issue raised in the set up to the question:
No disrespect to Colin Powell, but it seems to me to be too easy to blame the press for our (the public's) obsession with certain media stories. While it is true that the press teases out public interest by bringing stories to our attention, the relationship between the amount of coverage and the amount of public interest winds up being more of a chicken-and-egg kind of phenomenon.

It seems to me, along these lines, that the press gave the Qu'ran-burning story a lot of attention because people kept wanting to hear more. Part of the reason many Americans followed the story so closely, I think, is because of all the hard-to-manage opinions and emotions surrounding the debate about the near-to-Ground-Zero cultural center.

Maybe the demand for heavy coverage of this story served some kind of psychological function for us, culturally speaking: perhaps we felt afraid and/or angry enough, near the anniversary of 9/11, to find some twisted gratification in imagining something most of us would (hopefully) never do: burn Qu'rans. And maybe - just maybe - witnessing the hateful actions of Terry Jones led us on some level to say to ourselves: "I do not want to be like that." I wonder if the heavy coverage might actually have done some good by offering a "negative example" - perhaps it has highlighted just how ugly prejudice can be in ways that will goad us to repentance and transformation.

So: I think the media should report precisely on stories such as the threatened Qu'ran burning, and also on the "positive" stories I see them reporting on all the time.

Consider the range of stories on the Dallas Morning News religion blog alone, over the past two weeks: Stanley Hauerwas' memoir, Brian Wilson and Dallas' "Day of Praise," Women in Christian Media in New York; the impact of religious faith on community outreach; what it means, spiritually-speaking, to grow old.

And maybe Pastor Gordon Stewart and the witness of his congregation can be added to the list.

M. BASHEER AHMED, Chairman, Muslim Community Center for Human Services, Dallas

Media only pay attention to sensational stories to sell the product. Decent, non-sensational stories seldom get attention of media or they are printed in small letters on the back pages.

To develop a civilized society, I would give equal importance to religious stories that promote tolerance, peace and harmony in the community.

There are two ways to broadcast a message. For example, I heard on the radio that " 49% of people oppose mosque on Ground Zero." Couldn't that same news be reported: "50% of people support mosque on Ground Zero?"

If only Pastor Terry Jones, the firebrand behind the "International Burn a Koran Day," had been going to Graceland. A small detour could have led him to the doorstep of fellow Pastor Steve Stone.

When Stone read in the newspaper that a new Memphis Islamic Center was coming to town, he scrambled to make a sign and took to the street. It read "Heartsong Church welcomes Memphis Islamic Center to the neighborhood."

This sign hasn't received much attention since it went up a year and a half ago.

GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program

So I'm a "media baron?"

I understand the news is mostly about the negative and the novel. The sensational sells, and sometimes it deserves the attention it gets.

One sensational religion story I would like to give more constant media attention is the persistence of brutal judicial punishments meted out by religious courts, such as stonings and amputations.

I would also like to focus on more in-depth investigative stories examining the role that modern religious law has played (for good or ill) in other of the controversial criminal stories we are aware of, such as the priest abuse scandal, wife abuse, and honor killings. These issues are international in their reach and affect thousands. There is something to be reported on about what religious laws sanction, condemn, and shield in every religious tradition. It is also clear that some people of faith feel their loyalty is divided between state law and their tradition's religious law. We need to better understand this issue and how it may influence law and policy in the future.

Another story I'd like to give attention is the proliferation of interfaith programs, institutes, and think tanks, which are growing across the United States and in Europe. Pollsters tell us the reach and influence of religion is diminishing, yet we seem to see more issues of religion appear in political and policy stories. I'd like to better understand why.

I would produce more stories highlighting persecutions inspired by religious beliefs, like the Christian inspired law in Uganda that would make homosexuality a capital offense. In Iran, seven Baha'is have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment based on their minority faith. This is only the latest in a long history of such persecution of the Baha'is, but most people are oblivious to this history.

There is also the fact that Christian minorities are under siege in several countries. Whether driven by the state or by cultural intolerance, the public needs to be made more aware of these persecutions.

LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin

Blaming the messenger is an old strategy for dealing with news we don't like. In a democracy that depends on the free flow of information, I am hesitant to limit journalists on what stories they should and shouldn't cover. Any and all religious stories are worthy of coverage by the press. Freedom of the press goes hand in hand with religious freedom.

On the other hand, journalists should be called to ethical standards not only in the way they report the news, but in the news they choose to report (or not report). While the extreme bias of Fox News has made the phrase "fair and balanced" an ironic punch line, fair and balanced reporting of religious news should keep the source in perspective and report alternative views.

While much of the initial coverage of the Florida Qur'an burning threat included the small size of the pastor Jones' church and the opposing Christian voices, this balance was mostly lost as 9/11 drew near. I am glad Pastor Jones changed his mind, but I fear the damage was already done in the international reporting of the threat.

To answer the broader question, a more thorough reporting of the positive stories emanating from religious communities of all kinds would set a better context for the negative stories. The kind of stories the public loves on television programs like "Extreme Makeover" happens frequently in religious communities who care for their own people or reach out to strangers in need. Perhaps the recent negative religion stories in Florida and New York would be heard differently if the nations - and the world - heard more stories about the kindness and care offered by Christian and Muslim communities to people beyond their own communities or religious adherents.

Good news is still news and needs to be reported as the context for showing when bad news is extreme and contrary to the main stream.

DANIEL KANTER, Senior minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas

My hope for the media is that it succeeds despite its tendency to report religiously-based stories on hatred, conflict, and violence. If the media can wean itself from that type of reporting, I would hope it could stimulate interest in motivating people to pay attention to good works done in the name of religion, dialogue, and those acts which bind us together as one human family.

American society needs help in breaking down many barriers that paint religion as the problem. It needs help with stories on how the religious vs. the non-religious work together, on seeing faith as more than belief in a God protected by the few, and on embracing a wide spectrum of spiritual responses to the human condition.

American society could use some help in seeing our commonalities through the lens of faith rather than continued stoking of the fire of difference. In the name of all the foundations of our religions, we have a guiding human purpose to engender love and service in all we do, and we need help realizing this.

DARRELL BOCK, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

The media needs to focus on a whole variety of religious stories. Collaborative stories of groups working together and how religious groups fill gaps in our social net are especially valuable. A lot of religious coverage is negative or about the negative things religion does (and those should continue to be covered because the accountability to society is also important).

Stories that help mutual understanding about the different faiths also are something media can do (Here dealing with the way stereotypes may misrepresent can be important). How religion influences decision-making on certain issues is also another angle on things.

So there is much that can be done here. It's important that people covering these topics have some background for it. Getting good background help for these stories also is important.

AMY MARTIN, Executive Director, Earth Rhythms; writer/editor, Moonlady Media

"Ka thunk... ka thunk... ka thunk." It's the now familiar sound of Walter Cronkite spinning in his grave.

Yet this particular case did have a positive side effect by inspiring much good dialogue on religious tolerance. While extremists like Terry Jones were loud, over and over again in quiet conversation I heard people say that extremists of any kind of group - religion, politics, the ladies sewing circle - do not represent its majority.

Even more than a morality tale against the damage that careless generalizations can create, the whole affair set off ripples overseas. If the Muslim world was watching a religious wacko threatening to burn their holy book, they also saw many more Americans vigorously protesting against such an act.

People are fascinated by fascinating things. With his outsized mustache and crazy mannerisms, Jones was a natural for the camera. But characters abound in our society. They capture some aspect of a topical story, while being far less inflammatory.

News should be human, covering all of the human experience, not just transitory conflicts but the issues that are threaded deeply through our lives, like the nature of religion and the meaning of existence, the tangle of human behavior and emotions, the quiet panic of raising children and the joy of life's quiet pleasures. "Human interest stories," my old buddies in the newspaper business would sneer.

Yet human interest doesn't have to mean sappy or non newsworthy. The shows "This American Life," "Speaking of Faith" and "The Story" from public radio programming providers - programs that cover topical news as well as the conditions that underlie it - show how edgy, deep and fascinating human interest can be. These are the type of shows I'd like to see and hear more.

JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor, Head of Staff, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas

Generations ago Walter Cronkite ended the broadcast evening news, "And that's the way it is." And for many Americans, it was. Cronkite spoke in monotone, showing little emotion. Backdrops for the news were bland--black and white for most who watched the evening news. Television offered four stations: ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. That's the way it was.

Today we recognize that's the way it may have been for some, but certainly not for all. Today we question who has the right to say the way it is? One news outlet boasts, "We report, you decide." But what they choose to report determines the boundaries of decisions to be made.

With the evolution of cable news networks, we now can choose a presentation of the news that fits our opinions. Today, dozens of national news outlets compete not only with each other, but with thousands on the world wide web. Advertising revenue drives media news, so they claw for market share. Competition for the viewer/reader is intense, contributing to the sensationalism of the news. The wackier the world, the more we want to watch. To see the dichotomy, watch Jim Lehrer on PBS compared to Wolf Blitzer or Shepherd Smith.

Cultural anxiety is good for business, so stories that prey upon our anxieties are found and reported. The result is that the extremes define the world we see on the news.

Opinions about Islam are a perfect example of this extremism. "One in four Americans believe Islam is a religion of hatred and violence," is the lead story. Why isn't the story, "75% of Americans hold no bias against Islam?" Who would watch that news or buy that paper?

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of Americans are tolerant of all religions, we find a guy in Florida threatening to burn Qurans, and now America is Islamophobic. That sells in the Arab world and at home.

Media barons would never report on mainstream religious stories because hungry people being fed, homeless people being housed, hurting people being helped, and the holiness of every day moments doesn't sell advertising. The Dallas Morning News used to have a fantastic religion section, but in the name of cutting costs, they eliminated it.

Thank God for PBS, and shows like, "Speaking of Faith." That's a great example of religious reporting. But no one will ever make enough money off that to become a media baron.

GEORGE MASON, Senior Pastor, Wilshire Baptist Church, Dallas

Everywhere I go I hear people ask, "Where are the moderate Muslim voices that work to prove that Islam really is a religion of peace and opposed to terrorism?" They live among us quietly and faithfully. Some do reach out and speak out, but they do not have the cultural cache to garner attention.

Media types might go in search for them in the wake of some horrendous event to get a reaction, but they are not featured otherwise. The same can be said for Christians and Jews and those of other religions who go about their work promoting peace and justice in our communities. They aren't flashy, but what they do makes more of a difference than we realize.

A pastor friend once said that if you want to imagine hell, just take every religious and charitable organization out of your community. Then you'll see what hell looks like. He overstated it, as preachers are wont to do; but while the presence of these do not make for heaven on earth, they do have a way of keeping all hell from breaking loose.

The problem the media has is that it needs to be heard in order to sell advertising. The shocking and sensational sells. If newspapers and television stations didn't have to worry about revenue and could only focus on the common good, they could do a better job of searching out what the public should know and giving it to them, rather than asking first what the public will pay attention to. It's a vicious - not a virtuous - cycle that sadly feeds upon itself and produces the likes of the Reverend Terry Jones.

WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

The problems nowadays with "religiously-based" stories are the same as most of the problems with "health-care" stories or "economy" stories or "peace in the Middle East stories." That is, namely, that they tend to be interested only in the spectacular events (such as threatening to set fire to copies of the Qur'an) or that the reporting about them tends too quickly to default into stories that focus on the political implications.

Perhaps, specifically in the latter case, they tend to become reportage on how this issue will impact either the effectiveness of the Tea Party, or the job security of the Republican National Committee chair, or the likely results of November's elections.

We need somebody in the news media -- an owner of a news conglomerate, a producer of radio newscasts, an executive with one of the television networks, an editor of an online journal, a print mogul -- to discover how to report on a religious story that is simply and clearly a report on religious institutions, activities, or practices that avoids boring the audience without resorting to the lurid or the sensationally superficial.

With regard to Muslims in America, for example, instead of reporting on the prejudices that some percentage of Americans hold toward adherents of Islam, we could benefit from reporting on the presence of Muslins in the United States. The reports could deliver useful information on ways that religious practices impact the workplace and ways that the workplace impacts religious practice.

For instance, how are productivity and efficiency affected by a business calendar that is driven by Jewish and Christian preferences, whereby Saturday and Sunday constitute a weekend? What business opportunities are emerging to serve the interests of the Muslim community? Is there a sufficient critical mass of Muslims to affect inventories at Barnes and Noble or Borders?

There is also an enormous amount of room for religiously-based stories on the role of religion in an age when religious institutions are playing increasingly smaller roles in society. How many social welfare agencies (nursing homes, children's service centers, health care facilities) began within religious organizations but have shifted from their spiritual foundations?

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, Minister, ISKCON Kalachandji's Hare Krishna Temple Dallas

So much effort is put into producing the media's products. How much money does it take to run a newspaper press, a news station, and a radio show? However, at 10 a.m. when the paper has been read, what is its value? It is simply fit for the bottom of the bird cage.
Who records the TV news station to see it for a second time?

Therefore the Vedic truth compares the literatures that do not touch on eternal topics, such as God, to a garbage dump. (*SB 1.5.10) Whereas factual spiritual literature brings about a change of heart (*SB 1.5.11)

"According toNîti-úâstra(civic laws) one should not speak an unpalatable truth to cause distress to others. Distress comes upon us in its own way by the laws of nature, so one should not aggravate it by propaganda." -Srimad Bhagavatam 1.13.13 PURPORT

Everyone naturally suffers from the threefold miseries: ones produced of the body & mind, ones from other living entities, and ones from the environment itself. Spiritual literature affords a means to extricate ones consciousness out of such suffering to experiencing reality at a transcendentally pleasurable level.

As a hungry bird in acage is not pleased by the polishing of the cage so similarly the hungry heart is not satisfied with literature devoid of God. (*SB 1.5.12)

Therefore I would focus on those news events, such as Radhanath Swami's new book The Journey Home, that bring about a change of heart and a relief from the sufferings of this material world.

Mike Ghouse dialogues for Jon Stewart daily show

This is the most humorous way of communicating the issues, kudos to Jon Stewart for making it easy and driving the point home.

SIX MINUTES FUNNY VIDEO ON THE TOPIC:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update

It appears that Jon Stewart's dialogue in this clip are identical to mine at least three of them, my write up was done a few days prior to Jon's show.

About Saudi ArabiaSome clips at this link : http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-articles.html

Indeed, Newt calls the Saudi Regimes names, and I do too, but when he was in power, why did not he go build a church there, and maintain it at our tax payers funds?The Saudi Police has done harm in preventing people of other faiths from practicing their religion in open. I do condemn the Saudi government for that intrusion and I have written to their embassy and the condemnation is on the blog and groups; however, no one is barred from worshipping indoors. There was a Catholic and Mormon Service conducted every Sunday in Saudi Arabia that I know of. Norman Powell was the Mormon pastor from Houston (1977-1980)If Saudi is bad country, why does Newt want us to emulate them?

About Gingrich
I wrote in facing off with Newt Gingrich
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/08/newt-gingrich-v-mike-ghouse-on-cordoba.html

There is no Church or a Synagogue in Saudi Arabia, simply because there is no indigenous Christian or Jewish populace out there to worship, those who work there are on a short term work permit. It is dumb to build a Church, and for whom? And let’s say if it were built, who is going to maintain and upkeep once the visitors have moved out, are they willing to pay for it or is it our Government? Should Government be in the business of building Churches?Indeed, Newt calls the Saudi Regimes names, and I do too, but when he was in power, why did not he go build a church there, and maintain it at our tax payers funds?

There is a lot more common between Michael Bloombergs speech, my Washington Post Article and Jon Stewart's dialogues

Mike Ghouse in Washington Posthttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/on_mosque_us_should_stand_on_moral_high_ground.html
Michael Bloomberg’s speech, several commonalities in my talking points with his http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/03/mayor_bloomberg_on_mosque/index.html
Mike Ghouse is a speaker on Islam and Pluralism offering pluralistic solutions to media and the publice on issues of the day. His work is found at 22 blogs and 3 websites listed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/

References: About 32 Articles for and against are listed at this link

Some clips at this link : http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-articles.html

Link to this posting - http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/08/mike-ghouse-dialogues-for-jon-stewart.html

July 4th - what does freedom mean to you?

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/07/july-4th-what-does-freedom-mean-to-you.html

Happy July 4th. What does it mean to you? July 4th means freedom to me and I continue to debate with myself which one of the two is the most important value to me, Freedom or Justice?

The essence of freedom is directly proportional to the ability to question oneself, to question our own faith and our own myths and prejudices about others and find answers to set ourselves free. When I read Abraham Lincoln’s statement in Dale Carnegie’s book way back in late sixties, “With malice towards none” I was moved. Years later, I have written in my will, that one day I am going to be completely free from prejudice, bias, malice and ill-will and if I do, I want my headstone to read “With Prejudice towards None”, or “Zero Prejudice”.

Thank God for America, where we cherish and value the freedom endowed to us by the creator. I chose to be an American and I am blessed to be one in my heart and the spirit.

No matter what our Pastor, Pundit, Rabbi, Imam, Shaman, clergy, teacher or politician tells us, we are the ones to deal with ourselves in our solitude. So, the responsibility to live freely rests squarely on our own shoulders. For every good we do a serene feeling gets uploaded and for the every wrong we do, that serenity gets depleted.

I have come to revere our constitution for the value it places on equality, freedom and justice. Indeed, I have to plug in for my mother land India, whose constitution was influenced by American constitution, both free nations run by the people for the people.

July 4th means freedom to me and I continue to debate with myself which one of the two is most important to value to me, Freedom or Justice?

The essence of freedom is directly proportional to the ability to question oneself, to question one's own faith, myths and prejudices about others and find answers to set oneself free. When I read Abraham Lincoln’s statement in Dale Carnegie’s book way back in late sixties, “With malice towards none” I was moved. Years later, I have written in my will, that one day I am going to be completely free from prejudice, bias, malice and ill-will and if I do, I want my headstone to read “With Prejudice towards None”, or “Zero Prejudice”.

Thank God for America, where we the people cherish and value the freedom endowed to us by the creator. I chose to be an American and I am blessed to be one in my heart and spirit.

No matter what our Pastor, Pundit, Rabbi, Imam, Shaman, clergy, teachers or our politicians tell us, we are the ones to deal with ourselves in our solitude. So, the responsibility to live freely rests squarely on our own shoulders. For every good we do a serene feeling gets uploaded and for the every wrong we do, that serenity gets depleted.

I have come to revere our constitution for the value it places on equality, freedom and justice. Indeed, I have to plug in for my mother land India, whose constitution was influenced by American constitution, both free nations run by the people for the people.

Seriously, we have to ask ourselves;

1. Am I free from bias towards other races?
2. Am I free from bias towards people of other religions?
3. Am I free from bias towards people of other nations?
4. Am I free from bias towards people with different life styles?
5. Am I free from bias towards people who do not have a degree?
6. Am I free from bias towards people who do “lesser” jobs than I do?
7. Am I free from overweening opinion of myself?

If we justify any one of these behaviors, we really need to sit down and analyze ourselves, for truth will set us free. Freedom is so beautiful, once you taste it; you get hooked on to it. Religiously, when Jesus says follow me, or Krishna says surrender to me, or Quraan says submit to the will of Allah and every one of the religion says the same thing… What are they saying? To become like God, to be free from conflict, free from bias, free from ill-will and to be one with the cosmic energy.

In your search for the truth, I hope you will discover that the hate for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Americans, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, Koreans or someone else is binding and blinding you, it gets your blood pressure going, you get upset, you curse others… is it worth it? Friends free yourselves from all these bondages, you are not a slave, and be a free man or a woman. Hate is not the solution, co-existence is, you live your life and I will do mine together we can build a community for all of us to feel home.

I was irreligious for nearly thirty years, with love for all religions, but none for myself. I have developed a habit of randomly flipping through the pages of almost all of the Holy Scriptures at my home, one such event led me to this beautiful life changing phrase for me, “Finding the truth is one’s own responsibility” in Bhagvad Gita. Mahatma Gandhi asserted “Satyameva Jayate” truth ultimately triumphs. That’s what turned me to research the veracity of attacks on Islam, my former religion at that time. It set me free and thank God, I have taken extraordinary time to understand Quraan and have grasped the politics of misquotes and mistranslations and have rendered the findings in a Blog on Qur’aan.

I could have chosen to adapt any religion, as all of them are equally beautiful, my choice for Islam was my extensive research on Pluralism and co-existence that I found in Qur’aan, otherwise, I would have been fine as a Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Choctaw, Hindu, Humanist, Jain, Jew, Maya, Sikh, Wicca and every tradition in between and the Zoroastrian. I cherish and honor every which way one worships or acknowledges the divine, one does not have to believe in God to be a good human to work with, live with, dine with or be friends with. Indeed, my pledge to myself is to defend the divinity of every religion with an open heart and an open mind.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Do the the right wingers recite this pledge of allegiance? Would they really say, "liberty and justice for all?"

ARE YOU READY FOR THIS?

Most of us are not ready for it, particularly our clergy but munch on this thought any way; isn't religion about humility? Every form of prayer is geared to remove arrogance, as it is the root cause of conflicts; humility is a catalyst to building bridges and understanding. Isn't claiming superiority of your religion amounts to arrogance? Doesn't it really keep you away from the essence of it? I have endured humiliating experiences, thank God for it, but I have to let it be known that, we will be free from arrogance within our life time and acknowledge the otherness of other with love and affection without losing an ounce of our own religion.

TID-BITS

Now a few tid-bits about July 4th followed by the list of events that led to American independence, the declaration of independence, Bill of rights and the link to our national Anthem sourced form Library of Congress and Wikipedia.

Morocco was the first state to recognize the independence of the United States of America. The two countries signed the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship ten years later. Friesland, one of the seven United Provinces of the Dutch Republic, was the next to recognize American independence (February 26, 1782), followed by the Staten-Generaal of the Dutch Republic on April 19, 1782. John Adams became the first US Ambassador in The Hague.

On April 3, 1783, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Count Gustaf Philip Creutz, representing the King of Sweden, and Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce in Paris, France. In the Treaty, they pledged, firm, inviolable and universal peace and a true and sincere friendship between the King, his heirs and successors, and the United States of America.

Moin Ansari and Dr. Range Gowda historians of Tipu Sultan, a brave Indian patriot from the State of Mysore was allied with the French and was ready to overwhelm his rival Marhattas who were in bed with the British. Tipu’s policies were similar to those of the other patriot across the oceans, where General Washington allied with the French General LaFayette defeated British colonialism in America. On 4th of July 1776 Mysore along with Washington celebrated the American independence.

IN 1999 on the biannual centenary of Tipu Sultan’s death, Dr. Range Gowda and I had talked about celebrating July 4th in Sriranga patnam ( Tipu Sultans capital near the City of Mysore) and it never materialized. However, two brass busts were made of Tipu Sultan, one went to the Chief Minister of the State and the other one is with me here in Dallas.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer, optimist, educator and an activist of Pluralism, Justice, Islam, India, Peace and Civil Societies. He is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer offering pluralistic solutions on issues of the day and is a frequent guest on the media. Mike's work is reflected at three websites & twenty two Blogs listed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/


Additional comments:

Vanja, indeed, that is the truth, if you can make it here, you can make it everywhere. This nation continues to remain open to ideas, thoughts, cultures and diversity and that is the simple reason for its prosperity.

Ann, your quote takes me to Buddha, Prophet Muhammad and every spiritual Master; Buddha's four truths if followed, will set one free from misery and frustration; Muhammad's concept of Jihaad; conquering one's jelousies, hate, ill-will, malice, anger.... will lead one to be free.
Anoop, thanks for the comments, your first comment is wisdom studded.
Happy independence to ya'll.

Freedom and restrictions go hand in hand. The more advanced or civilized a society is, greater the restrictions. My friend Dr. Saleh Shariff was amazed at the restrictions on driving, parking etc we have in the United States, when he visited me in the early 80's ..

Indeed, the restictions offer freedom to drive freely knowing that the restrictions on all, assures me the freedom to be safe and drive without fear. Prophet Muhammad had once said, that he would like to see a society where a woman, a child or an old man can walk to Damascus without fear of any harassment. Dr. Rajagopalachari, India's first governor general had reiterated that by adding, whether it is day or night, one should feel the freedom to go anywhere any time without any fear and concluded, that is civility to me. Indeed, it is

Maha, indeed, both nations have opened their arms to others, it is the sense of security people have felt, they are not threatened by the otherness of other.

I hope the infractions among us in the last few years will go away and sustainable ideas grow and take a deeper root.The Statue of Liberty; "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,... See MoreThe wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" And here is my write up about India;We are proud of our heritage - a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-regional and multi-linguistic society, where we have come to accept and respect every which way people have lived their lives.

For over 5000 years, India has been a beacon of pluralism - it has embraced Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Baha’i and Zoroastrianism to include in the array of the indigenous religions; Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.
~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the American National Anthem:http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/nationalanthem.asp

U.S. National Anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" Composed by John Stafford Smith - lyrics Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thru the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out of of their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave'
From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

Listen to "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Read the modern score of "The Star-Spangled Banner"

American Flag Etiquette: http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/etiquette.asp

American Flag Etiquette.

Federal law stipulates many aspects of flag etiquette. The section of law dealing with American Flag etiquette is generally referred to as the Flag Code. Some general guidelines from the Flag Code answer many of the most common questions:

The flag should be lighted at all times, either by sunlight or by an appropriate light source.

The flag should be flown in fair weather, unless the flag is designed for inclement weather use.

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.

The flag should not be used for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.

The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard.

The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.

The flag should never have any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind placed on it, or attached to it.

The flag should never be used for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.

The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.

When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING TO JULY 4TH

Chronology of Events
1776

June 7
Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, receives Richard Henry Lee's resolution urging Congress to declare independence.

June 11
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston appointed to a committee to draft a declaration of independence. American army retreats to Lake Champlain from Canada.

June 12-27
Jefferson, at the request of the committee, drafts a declaration, of which only a fragment exists. Jefferson's clean, or "fair" copy, the "original Rough draught," is reviewed by the committee. Both documents are in the manuscript collections of the Library of Congress.

June 28
A fair copy of the committee draft of the Declaration of Independence is read in Congress.

July 1-4
Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence.

July 2
Congress declares independence as the British fleet and army arrive at New York.

July 4
Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence in the morning of a bright, sunny, but cool Philadelphia day. John Dunlap prints the Declaration of Independence. These prints are now called "Dunlap Broadsides." Twenty-four copies are known to exist, two of which are in the Library of Congress. One of these was Washington's personal copy.

July 5
John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, dispatches the first of Dunlap's broadsides of the Declaration of Independence to the legislatures of New Jersey and Delaware.

July 6
Pennsylvania Evening Post of July 6 prints the first newspaper rendition of the Declaration of Independence.

July 8
The first public reading of the Declaration is in Philadelphia.

July 9
Washington orders that the Declaration of Independence be read before the American army in New York

July 19
Congress orders the Declaration of Independence engrossed (officially inscribed) and signed by members.

August 2
Delegates begin to sign engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence. A large British reinforcement arrives at New York after being repelled at Charleston, S.C.
1777

January 18
Congress, now sitting in Baltimore, Maryland, orders that signed copies of the Declaration of Independence printed by Mary Katherine Goddard of Baltimore be sent to the states.
Source: Library of Congress


DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

BILL OF RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. An agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself.[2] Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights.[3]

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, guarantees free speech, free press, free assembly and association and the right to petition government for redress, forbids infringement of "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...", and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[4] and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
Source: Wiki

Text of the Bill of Rights
Preamble
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[6]

Amendments

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [7]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Mike Ghouse Profile

IN 60 WORDS

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer, optimist, educator and an activist of Pluralism, Justice, Islam, Peace and Civil Societies. He is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer offering pluralistic solutions on issues of the day and is a frequent guest on the media. Mike's work is reflected at three websites & twenty two Blogs listed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/

MIKE'S PROFILE IN 60, 600 or 6000 WORDS

http://www.mikeghouse.net/ProfileMikeGhouse.asp

interfaith, intra-faith, pluralism, religion & spirituality

ABSTRACT: Interfaithing is NOT about uniting religions, it is about hearing each other, and learning to remove myths and falsehoods about other faiths and live without fear of the other. Much of the fear is imaginary - like a child being afraid of the boogey man that ain't there. Let the goodness in you find the goodness in others.

Link: http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/05/interfaith-intra-faith-pluralism.html

Pakistani Americans declare war on terrorism

Sacramento's Pakistani Americans declare war on terrorism
http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/05/pakistani-americans-declare-war-on.html

Three ways of looking at the situation;

As Muslims we need to continue to remain alert, if we have an inkling of some one who 'wishes' to hurt another being, it is our religious duty to pounce on him/her and stop it at once unequivocally. The Quraan says saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. The only sin God does not forgive is shirk, that is assigning some one to do God's job; one of them is to give life and take life. This is where we need to do our Jihad, to prevent a Bin Laden or another idiot to take over God's job. This is Shirk, unforgivable by God.

We need to send a clear signal to the terrorists, what the Muslims in Mumbai had done - deny burial in a Muslim cemetery if there is one. Let them know clearly that they are not welcome among Muslims, who the hell they think they are, God? No Muslim should tolerate any one to do God's job, it is a shirk to give another person the status of God.

As Americans we need to treat these guys as common criminals, and should resist the temptation of labeling them a Muslim or a Pakistani, what is the point, blame the man and not his family, school, city, religion or country? We need to do a study if these idiots do it for glory, if they do, we should not give them any, and there should not be any incentive to them.

As a civil society, we need to encourage open conversations across America, let people express their frustrations and share what is on their mind.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer and an activist of Pluralism, Justice, Islam, India and Civil Societies. He is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer offering pluralistic solutions to issues of the day. http://www.mikeghouse.net/

~ ~ ~
Sacramento's Pakistani Americans declare war on terrorism

http://www.modbee.com/2010/05/08/1158741/sacramentos-pakistani-americans.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=923310#Comments_Container

By Stephen Magagnini - smagagnini@sacbee.com

Sacramento's Pakistani American community Friday declared war on terrorism – whether it's in Pakistan or homegrown.

At the downtown Muslim mosque, several dozen local leaders thanked God for the quick arrest of Pakistan-born U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad in connection with the attempted Times Square car bombing before anyone was hurt.

Bashir Choudry, president of the Pakistani American Association of Sacramento, and other leaders expressed sadness that another Pakistani American has been linked to terrorism. Choudry said the community will do whatever it takes to root out terrorism.

That includes working with law enforcement, creating a Pakistani studies program at UC Davis to teach people about Pakistan's problems and potential, and lobbying U.S. lawmakers to promote stability, transparency and democracy in Pakistan.

Businessman Farrukh Saaed asked all community members "to help law enforcement find and prosecute these criminals – anyone who hears about suspicious behavior needs to come forward to try to stop it initially at the grass-roots level before it becomes something big."
"We are all together in defeating forces trying to hurt or damage the American way of life – peace, justice and freedom," Choudry said.

Community leaders said they'd support the Department of Homeland Security's plan to monitor travel between the United States and Pakistan. "We will cooperate as long as there's a good reason and it's not racial profiling," Choudry said.

The Rev. David Thompson, president of Sacramento's Interfaith Service Bureau, noted that the man "who found the smoking SUV and saved the day was a Muslim." True Islam is peaceful, "not this radicalized violence in the name of Islam," Thompson said.

Sacramento's 15,000 Pakistani Americans – whose roots in Northern California go back to 1895 – include doctors, lawyers, professors and philanthropists, said longtime community leader Rashid Ahmad.

"We have an obligation to educate our own people and American society about the true nature, problems and potential of Pakistan," said Ahmad, who supports a Pakistani Studies program at UC Davis and plans to invite the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court to California.

Not only have Pakistanis laid down their lives to battle terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan Ahmad said, "our relatives in Pakistan face a daily onslaught from terrorist bombings."
To help Pakistanis solve their own problems, "Pakistani Americans have an obligation to communicate with our government in the U.S. to not give money, but support democratic forces, transparency, good government and good education," Ahmad said.

Times Square suspect Shahzad, the son of a decorated aviator in the Pakistani air force, is an unemployed financial analyst from the suburb of Shelton, Conn. He allegedly hatched the car bomb plot after numerous trips to Pakistan where he was trained by radical elements in the Pakistani Taliban.

Haseeb A. Rana, an IT manager at Intel in Folsom, expressed the frustration shared by many Muslims when Americans are linked to terrorism in Pakistan.

Lodi's Hamid Hayat was convicted of lying about attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2007.

In 2003, the "Lackawanna Six," Yemeni Americans from New York who attended an al-Qaida jihadist camp in Pakistan, pleaded guilty to terrorism charges.

"There are a lot of people like me who want to help but we don't know what to do – a good Muslim will never hurt anybody," Rana said. "We have to ask more questions so we can diagnose this cancer and find a cure."

YOUR COMMENTS

The Smearing of Rashad Hussain

The world is crying out loud for Muslims to take initiatives to bring about a positive change, and when they do, the right wingers start pouncing. They sound like cranky men, damn if you do and damn if you don't.

To be critical is part of our democracy and am glad if some one is critical with the intent of finding the truth and not to act out their crankiness. Well, in the case of Rashad, it's a blessing that the right wingers pounced on him, as we have found Rashad's admirable position in the following write up by Marc Lynch.

My response to Cal Thomas at his blog was, " It is always good to be critical, and I appreciate the note. However, you have not taken the time to learn about Rashad Hussain and simply going by Robert Spencer, who is in the busines of making money by maligning others or frightening the Cxxp out of others." more at his link.

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2010/02/smearing-of-rashad-hussain.html

Mike Ghouse for America
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Smearing of Rashad Hussain

Posted By Marc Lynch Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 9:15 PM Share
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/23/the_despicable_smearing_of_rashad_hussein
Rashad Hussain's appointment as the Obama administration's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries, part of the broader strategy of outreach to the Muslim world, was as welcome as it was overdue. Hussain, a lawyer who had been working in the White House counsel's office and also working with the NSC on Muslim engagement, seemed an excellent pick. The announcement in Doha showed a renewed sense of urgency about delivering on the promise of Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslim world. It is good to see a Muslim appointed to such a position. After the failed Christmas bombing most would agree that the task of combatting violent extremism is as urgent a national security priority as ever.

But then, an all-too-familiar script began to play out. A paper-thin but insinuation-heavy hit piece laid out the template for a rapidly unfolding smear campaign: damning him by association for appearances at various events sponsored by Muslim organizations, for being on the "wrong" side of a number of controversial trials of Muslims (as if there were only one legitimate perspective on those hotly contested issues), and of allegedly doctoring the record of comments about Sami al-Arian (see Daveed Gartenstein-Ross's detailed, rigorous analysis of the textual evidence which decisively debunks the charge). The hit piece was quickly picked up by the noise machine and disseminated through a range of right wing blogs and websites, migrating seamlessly to Fox News and Politico, and becoming the fodder for another manufactured scandal of the day. Within days, it has become standard to describe Hussain as a "terrorist sympathizer"... and the hate is flowing. It is no less despicable for being so commonplace.

One irony is that Hussain is actually one of those Muslims who has been speaking out against extremism, forcefully and eloquently, and whose role in Muslim engagement was explicitly focused on building alliances with Muslims around the world to marginalize al-Qaeda. In a Brookings paper published in 2008, Hussain wrote that "[T]he terrorist ideology is advocated by small, fringe groups and rejected by a vast majority of Muslims . . . as American policymakers and leaders have recognized, Islam rejects terrorism." He argued that "there exists a near-unanimous, overwhelmingly accepted view among Islamic scholars rejecting terrorism and the practice of takfir to justify terrorism." He went on to argue that "If the global coalition to stop Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups is to succeed, it must convince potential terrorists that Islam requires them to reject terrorism." Indeed, he argued, "The most paramount task for the global counterterrorism coalition is to emphasize that engaging in terrorism is antithetical to the shari’ah, or Islamic law." This is not a close call.

That a Muslim who has written so powerfully against extremism and terrorism is nevertheless so casually tarred as a terrorist sympathizer is shameful. It is also strategically dangerous. Those serious about counter-terrorism and combatting violent extremism now mostly understand that such campaigns also have the potential to deal a sharp blow against U.S. efforts to combat violent extremism and to counter al-Qaeda's narrative. It threatens to offer ammunition to al-Qaeda's claim that the U.S. is at war with Islam, not with "extremism", and to sabotage Obama's efforts to establish a new narrative. Hussain's critics know perfectly well that he's not a terrorist and doesn't support terrorism, and probably understand that their campaign against him will have a negative impact on the Muslim community in America and beyond. Evidently they don't care.

Fortunately, the story doesn't end there. The bright spot in this sordid affair has been the willingness of a few national security experts on the hawkish side of the spectrum to stand up in public and denounce the railroading of Hussain. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, wrote a powerful personal defense of Hussein as primarily motivated by civil liberties concerns, not by Islamism. He took that defense on TV, where he had to face the wild-eyed insanity of Frank Gaffney (apparently, memorizing the Quran is evidence of extremism) and to confont head-on the madness of the anti-Islamic post-9/11 fringe. Some other conservative national security experts rose to Gartenstein-Ross's defense -- I'll single out Max Boot and Eli Lake, though they certainly aren't the only ones. For others, well, welcome to the Islamofascist stealth jihad, ya Daveed.

The response of these national security conservatives has been heartening. There's more and more understanding of the importance of disaggregating the challenge, placing al-Qaeda and the jihadist movement as a dangerous but tiny fringe movement rather than lumping together all Islamists or Muslims. Pushing back against this campaign is important just as it was essential to not over-react after Fort Hood or the Christmas bombing. So is the response of the White House, which has stood fast against the smears rather than folding at the first sign of an attack. Hopefully both national-security conservatives and the White House will continue to do so. If sensible people stand up against these contemptible smears, it could send a powerful message that the days of such intimidation and smear campaigns are past. Let's hope.

~~~

Goofy Clinton avoided nuke question

Clinton avoided nuke question
From correspondents in Riyadh,
Herald Sun, Australia

This note is in reference to statement in the article below, "Ms Clinton had been on a three-day trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia to discuss, among other things, how to confront Iran's alleged programme to develop nuclear weapons."

Why do we go about the negative way? Aren't we causing Iran to take the challenge and dig in their heels, is that what we want? We should spend similar energy on friendship rather than placing a wedge between other nations, such a measure is based on a short-term need but creating eternal enemies, forget about them, it puts us on guard all the time, do we want that? There is a famous Chinese saying, the only way to remove the enemy for good is to friend him.

Hilary, your approach is goofy. When we create space, room and respect for others, we have won their hearts and at the end both of us benefit.

Mike Ghouse

Here is the article:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/clinton-avoided-nuke-question-student/story-e6frf7jx-1225832790510

A SAUDI student blasted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for skirting her question on Israel's nuclear arsenal during a "town hall'' meeting at a Jeddah college. "I did not get a straight answer,'' Mariyam Alavi said in a letter published in Arab News on her question to the top US diplomat last Tuesday.

"My question was simple and direct enough,'' she wrote, but Ms Clinton's response "was very unsatisfying.'' Alavi, a 12th grader at the International Indian School in Jeddah, attended the meeting at the elite Dar al-Hekma College with six classmates.

She had asked Ms Clinton about Washington's stance on the existence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. If the Americans "so vehemently oppose Iran's nuclear programme,'' she had asked, "then why isn't the US asking Israel to give up their nuclear weapons?''

Ms Clinton gave a lengthy answer detailing the US case against Iran, but did not mention Israel.
She did, however, say that "we want not only a world free of nuclear weapons, we want a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, including everyone.''

Alavi's Arab News letter assailed US "hypocrisy'' over the issue, reflecting a widely held sentiment in in the region. "Clinton said that the United States, under the able leadership of President Barack Obama, was trying to repair and strengthen its ties with the Muslim world.

"It is high time she realised it couldn't be done without answering the questions uppermost in the minds of the Middle East people.'' Alavi said she had been nervous about asking such a "politically provocative question'' but was then encouraged by strong applause from the audience when she addressed Ms Clinton.

Ms Clinton had been on a three-day trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia to discuss, among other things, how to confront Iran's alleged programme to develop nuclear weapons.
~~~