HOME | ABOUT US | Speaker | Americans Together | Videos | www.CenterforPluralism.com | Please note that the blog posts include my own articles plus selected articles critical to India's cohesive functioning. My articles are exclusively published at www.TheGhouseDiary.com You can send an email to: MikeGhouseforIndia@gmail.com


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hindu Wedding Challenged.

Hindu Wedding Challenged.
Criminal Case filed against Liz Hurley - Arun Nayar Wedding.
Mike Ghouse March 14, 2007


"Liz Hurley is neither a Hindu nor has she accepted Hinduism, she has hurt the religious sentiments of the community by marrying in Hindu style." Khandelwal said in a Criminal complaint filed against the couple in Jodhpur, India.

You have the freedom to choose any religion you want, or practice what works for you. No one should stop you from buying any soda you want, any book you want to read, and any part or whole of any religion you want to consume. They are a public domain.

If you want to read a book on self improvement, perhaps the following author's names come to your mind. Dale Carnegie, Napoleon Hill and a host of great writers who have shaped the lives of many. If you want do drink a soda; Coke, Pepsi, Miranda, Dr. Pepper and other names come up.

Similarly, if you want to know about religions; Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islam, Jain, Jewish, Sikh, Shinto and Zoroastrian Religions pop up.

“Vishnu Khandelwal, who filed the case, has maintained that Hurley and Nayar had made a mockery of Hindu customs and traditions and hurt the feelings of Hindus by marrying according to their religious custom, in spite of the fact that Hurley was not a Hindu and nor had she embraced the religion.”

Krishna, Jesus or Muhammad is NOT owned by Hindus, Christians or Muslims, nor is Gita, Bible or Qur’aan owned by them respectively.

Who owns Hinduism? For that Matter who owns Islam, Christianity or any faith? Do these groups have any copyrights or patent rights to the messages in the holy books? No one has exclusive rights to any faith.

“It must be for the first time in the history wherein persons have got re-married after getting married once," Khandelwal said, adding that it is a criminal offence and demanded that a case be registered against them under the Indian Penal Code.”

Nayar converted to Christianity and married to Liz on March 3 in Christian tradition in England and on March 9th they married again in Hindu tradition. Many a married couples whether converted or not, go through two or sometimes three traditions to please the parents or satisfy their own cultural longings. No one will strip the faith completely nor do they go cold turkey on their birth customs, much of the culture and tradition stays on.

Krishna's life and his message was a model for every human to look up to, so was Muhammad's and Jesus’. Every one of them had a message for the whole mankind, let's not be cruel to them and decimate their message. They belong to all.

Just like God, the great men belong to the whole humanity, shame on us, for monopolizing ownership of these great souls. By owning them, we are imprisoning their message. Isn't that utterly and disgustingly selfish?

No one owns Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any faith. Let people chose what they want to believe and what they want to practice.

This law suit is the result of illegal ownership of Hinduism. Let Mr. Khandelwal prove that the Vedas or Puranas, Sri Krishna or Sri Rama have banned the general public from following anything they have said and practiced. No one would have been hurt if Mr. Khandelwal did not want to make a stinky out of it.

Arun believed that his marriage would be complete by following the rituals that he knew makes the marriage. Liz loved him enough to do what he wished. It is their love. We don't need to be villains in their lives.

The court has decided to hear Khandelwal and other witnesses on March 21. I am sure he has some gains to be had. That is not the sentiments of a majority of Hindus.

It is time we let any one follow any thing they want, partially or fully, as long as they do good to others and do not hurt, do not steal other's Roti, Kapda aur Makaan.

Mike Ghouse


Criminal complaint filed against Liz-Nayar [ 13 Mar, 2007 1700hrs IST IANS ]

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Obama, the right choice

Obama is the right candidate.

Mike Ghouse

Expect the most complaisant attitude when you are not the norm. Norm here meaning some one people are not acclimated with.

Biden’s remarks that Obama is “articulate and clean” can be viewed from that attitude that hits you when you are not the norm. Being an Indian American, I have heard comments from both Black and White folks “Where did you learn your English, you are so articulate.” Likewise, if you are a woman; black, white or otherwise, you hear similar comments if you bring a project to fruition. If you are a Kid running a big corporation, you do get your share of cordialities.

Senator Obama’s response is worth exploring here. “Obama, however, spoiled the promise of that fight by never seeming to take offense.” Don’t we need a person in the white house who thinks and whose aptitude is molded do act right, rather than react from the seat of his pants?

He did not want to pick a fight, neither did he want to spend his time on trivial things. He knew there is a room for making the mistake, chance of slip of the tongue, and as long as that comment did not turn America upside down, he did not see the need to make a big deal out of it. That is the kind of person we need running our nation.

Victoria Brownworth wrote in the Journal –Register “If you want to succeed in high level politics in the U.S. as an African American, then you had better look and sound and act as white as possible.” I wanted to understand this statement in depth and started imagining a predominantly black neighborhood homeowners association’s meeting, where the homeowners got together to discuss the improvements they want to make in the neighborhood. There are a few who are adamant and wanted the funds to be spent on certain improvement; where as the other group had their own vested interests. When things were not going anywhere, there comes a woman (or man) who speaks about the need for doing things that benefit most people without compromising the basic needs of any group. The chances of that resolution passing are far higher than the other. Is that betrayal of one group over the other? If Senator Obama is that woman who propagated this workable solution, then should either group accuse him of acting as white as possible?

Should a white candidate represent only the interest of white people? Should the candidate be accused because he or she is representing the interests of majority of the Americans? The African Americans have a reason to take pride and support Obama, he is one of their own, who for the first time in history has a real chance to represent the interests of all Americans.

You have heard this too many times that the President of India is a Muslim, the Prime Minister is a Sikh and the head of the ruling party is a Christian in a Hindu majority nation. Since, all Indians are of the same race and same DNA, religion is used as a discerning factor. All the three have national interest in their hearts, they are proud of their community and will always be loyal to them, but they will not compromise on national interest. Is each one of them is sold out? Absolutely not! A week ago President Kalam attended the Muslim congregational Friday prayers and the Imam wanted to present gifts to him, he declined. He demonstrated an outstanding sense of integrity.

Victoria Brownworth further writes “he has a centrist message that is barely distinguishable between white and black.” Thanks God he does have a centrist message. He is an all inclusive candidate, White or Black is secondary to him. Thank God he is not on the extreme either, he opposed the un-wanted war, his clarity was crystal clear. He spoke against it while most others did not have the guts to speak up. He did his patriotic act of speaking up and saving America, this the kind of candidate we need to lead America in to the future and earn the respect from among the community of nations.

He is the beneficiary of the civil rights act and is a perfect example of the dream of Martin Luther King. Obama would be a dream come true.


Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. His articles can be found at http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/ , www.FoundationforPluralism.com , www.MikeGhouse.net and http://mikeghouse.sulekha.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com


BLACK IN WHITE AMERICA
by Victoria A. Brownworth

copyright c 2007 Journal-Register Newspapers, Inc.

When Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) kicked off his presidential campaign by plunging his foot into his mouth with his comments about fellow candidates Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, the media focused its attention solely on his comments about Obama.

The reasons for this were political: racism trumps sexism in America (and everywhere else) and one white guy going after another white guy looks like an equal playing field. So only the Obama insults got noticed by the mainstream media.

Why? Because it’s politically incorrect to even mention race in America, it’s a quagmire far deeper and messier than Iraq.

Biden said, in the course of an interview with a reporter from a conservative New York newspaper (perhaps Biden’s first mistake), that Obama was something new to politics, a “first” as a presidential candidate, an articulate and clean African American.

This is encapsulating what Biden said, which might not be completely fair, but that’s politics for you. The fact is the only words that mattered in what he said were those two: articulate and clean.

Some, like myself, think that should have been when Biden dropped back out of the race, but he sallied on, with a series of apologies to Obama and the country, each more convoluted than the last.

Conservatives were salivating over the incident, just waiting for the Democrats to eat their own, as they are known to do. Obama, however, spoiled the promise of that fight by never seeming to take offense. Obama accepted Biden’s apology and said he wasn’t offended and that there were more important things to address than Biden’s gaffe.

Obama’s response would have appeared saintly, if it hadn’t been followed with the surprising agreement of two former African American candidates for president (Biden apparently also forgot that Obama was hardly the first).

Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton also waved off Biden’s comments as a verbal misstep, nothing to be outraged about. Jackson was particularly conciliatory. Although Sharpton noted that he thought he was pretty clean, both men said it was a mistake to be forgiven and forgotten.

Polls were taken and African Americans were interviewed on the street. A good 80 percent didn’t care what Biden said.

Does this mean that racism is over in America? Or just that blacks are used to white politicians making racist comments and when compared with Trent Lott saying the nation should have stuck with segregation, it didn’t seem so egregious?

Regardless of whether Obama, Jackson and Sharpton are willing to shrug off what Biden said, what the Senator declared does matter–not merely because he is a presidential candidate, but because he said what many Americans actually think about Obama–that he’s anomalous. That he simply isn’t like any other black candidate they remember.

He isn’t. Obama is a fresh face in politics, and as such has gotten a lot of buzz. Fresh faces always get buzz. Until they have been around for a while. Tabula rasa goes far in American politics while experience and baggage are interchangeable terms, politically. Since the fresh face will only last so long, let’s look at Obama in the context of the American racial divide.

Eight years ago people were talking about Colin Powell the same way they talk about Obama today: fresh, new, and let’s face it–in the context of the American black/white racial divide–not scary to white people.

This is what Biden really meant by what he said. It was subtextual, of course–he used his own euphemisms and he may not have realized what he was articulating either overtly or subconsciously. But it was clear: Obama attracts voters of all races because he never raises his voice, he has a centrist message that is barely distinguishable between white and black.
The course of American politics–national and local–supports the subtext of Biden’s comments, however. Consider the Philadelphia Mayor’s race. The best candidate is State Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Phila.), currently in last place in the polls. Why is Evans–the most visionary and accomplished of the candidates–in last place in a field with two other African American candidates and two white candidates?

Because he is the *blackest* candidate in the race. He’s dark skinned. He sounds black. In short, he can’t pass for the house Negro.

Colin Powell did pass. So has Condoleezza Rice. And now, Barack Obama. The real state of race in America is that bald and raw, still. If you want to succeed in high level politics in the U.S. as an African American, then you had better look and sound and act as white as possible. Because it isn’t black Americans who elect a black candidate; with only 12 percent of the population, blacks aren’t even the largest minority group in America anymore and fewer than half of eligible black voters actually vote. It’s white voters who elect b lack candidates.

Racism is still the elephant in the room in this country; whites fear a black candidate who doesn’t seem to share their values. That means a black man in a loud suit or with Little Richard hair, like Sharpton, scares them. Or a black man who sounds like he came from the streets, like Evans, scares them.

Last week there was a discussion about the field of Democratic candidates for president on NPR with several political pundits. Polls indicate that the majority of African Americans, like the majority of Democrats, support Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. Sen. Clinton runs at 40 percent in the polls; Obama at 12 to 15, depending on the poll.

The pundits had several explanations for this. First, they noted former President Bill Clinton’s cachet with African Americans. (Nobel Prize winner and African American writer Toni Morrison once wrote in the New Yorker magazine that Clinton was “the first black president.”) Then they noted that many African Americans knew nothing about Obama, who has only been in national politics for two years. It was also noted that Obama may have won the election in Illinois because the Republican favored to win was forced to drop out right before the election, due to a sex scandal, and the sudden replacement brought in by the Republican Party was the far right wing lunatic (albeit African American), Alan Keyes (another former presidential candidate, by the way), who wasn’t even a resident of the state (yet still received 30 percent of the vote).
Finally, it was suggested that Obama might not have as much cachet with African American voters for the very reason he was attractive to white voters: while he’s literally an African American in that his father was African (from Kenya) and his mother a white American (from Kansas), he did not grow up in the mainland U.S. He was born in Hawaii, and then lived with his mother and her Indonesian second husband in Jakarta for several years. He returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents for his high school years.

Obama is black, but unlike previous black candidates for president like Shirley Chisholm, Jackson and Sharpton, he isn’t from urban America, he isn’t from “the hood,” he doesn’t have a political history grounded in the civil rights movement. He’s an anomaly.

And that’s the point Biden was really making: that Obama is not like any other black candidate Americans have seen before. He doesn’t stoke the ingrained racism that a Sharpton or a Jackson inspired in white voters, because he isn’t controversial.

From the fact that Obama, a life-long smoker, never produces a cigarette in public because it wouldn’t look right for a candidate to be smoking, to the fact that he never says anything objectionable, Obama doesn’t stir controversy. He’s always calm, collected and smooth. He doesn’t outrage anyone, like Sharpton and Jackson have, because he never says anything outrageous.

In short, Obama is a black candidate that white people feel comfortable with, much like Chakah Fattah in Philadelphia. Both candidates tow the party line, don’t provide any visionary (and thus possibly scary) ideas to constituents. They are, as one African American columnist noted, Dr. Huxtable, the lovable Bill Cosby character that white America embraced. As a consequence, in the privacy of their own homes (rather than to a reporter as Biden did), white voters can say that they like Obama (or Fattah), *even though he’s black.*

I like Obama. Other than the smoking, what’s not to like? He’s charismatic, he’s attractive, he says the right things. But given the choice between a rabble-rousing, challenging, in-your-face, old-school Democratic black candidate like Sharpton or Jackson and the mild-mannered, ruffle-no-feathers Obama, I’d take the rabble-rousers over the calm centrism of Obama any day.
This factor characterizes the black/white racial divide in America today: The only acceptable candidates of color are ones who don’t read as black to white voters, the ones who, in a different time in America would have been the “house Negroes”–the slaves who were deemed innocuous enough to be allowed to work in the house with the white folks, rather than in the field, with the other slaves.

It shouldn’t be that way in 2007; it’s time to smash this racial glass ceiling in America. We might need the Obamas and Fattahs to exude their charisma and charm in politics, because that has its place, too, but we surely need the Sharptons and the Jacksons to scream and yell and make demands, as well.

What Biden said was only the tip of the racial iceberg, because what Biden said doesn’t elucidate the flip side: that white America is terrified of *real* black America.

I live in real black America. In real black America there are schools with no textbooks, no libraries and no computers and although all the students were born here, none can speak proper English and their teachers, weighed down by the myriad dangers of being a teacher in an inner city school, don’t correct their grammar. Which means they leave their schools with far less chance of getting a good job than their white counterparts.

In real black America, where I live, drugs and AIDS and teen pregnancy are pandemic. In real black America, where I live, guns are easier to get than health care and fatherless boys are easy lures for gangs and drug runners.

In real black America we need black politicians who will work to fix the problems of real black America, not assuage the racial fears and biases of white America.

It’s Black History Month. Not African American history month, but *black* history month. America still sees color before it sees anything else. If it didn’t, Biden would never have even thought the things he said about Obama.

The best way to celebrate Black History Month would be to acknowledge how much work we still have to do to bridge the divide between black America and white America and that the answer might not be for black politicians to act more white but for white politicians to be more concerned about black Americans.

##########

Obama for President

Senator Obama has an impressive record of having the vision and making the right decisions. Much before he announced his candidacy. He gave a speech on June 28, 2006 on Faith and politics (http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2007/02/faith-and-politics-obama.html). A must read piece. I had that listed on the website http://www.foundationforpluralisim.com/ since June of 2006.

He is one person who has an interest in a pluralistic America. I am pleased to take the step forward to join his mission and support his candidacy.

India has an immense proven diversity in its system. India has led the way in looking at the candidates and not their religion or gender. I do hope Americans see the value in the persona of Obama and elect Obama as our President.

Mike Ghouse

Can Barack Obama Become President?
By Allan Hunt Badiner

The man with an increasingly good chance of becoming America's first black president officially announced his candidacy on a cold Springfield morning just as newly deceased Anna Nicole Smith and newly shorn Brittney Spears inflicted serious competition for TV viewers.

Nevertheless Barack Obama, the 45-year-old son of Kenya and Kansas, has penetrated the media's foggy obsession with tabloid stars and has become, in short order, a celebrity himself. He has jump-started interest in the presidential race and zinged from something like 12 percent name recognition to being a close second for the Democratic nomination. With the campaign's starting gun only just fired, Obama is already perceived as a powerful threat to Hillary Clinton's well-funded political juggernaut and John Edwards' carefully planned strategies, and has emerged as the presumptive speaker for the conscience of the country in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

Many are excited just to be passionate again about a presidential campaign, even if it turns out be the classic brief dance of an underdog. But with lightning swiftness, an Obama nomination seems tantalizingly possible. Even sitting presidents can't always raise the $1.3 million taken in by the Obama campaign during a single fundraising event in Los Angeles on Feb. 20 sponsored by Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeff Katzenberg and David Geffen.

The field reports on Obama are also impressive: He recently addressed the largest ever pre-presidential-primary crowds in New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio and Texas and has been endorsed by Iowa's attorney general and state treasurer -- pragmatic characters practiced at backing obvious winners in their state. The Iowa caucuses early next year will be among the nation's first electoral tests of presidential candidates. Inside the offices of MoveOn.org, there is agreement that Obama is far and away the favorite among its members and has been for the past six months. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has endorsed him, saying that Obama "personifies the future of Democratic leadership."

What do we know about this first-term U.S. senator who wants to be our president? The Obama resume is formidable: Harvard Law School graduate and president of the Harvard Law Review, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, author of two best-selling books, grass-roots organizer and Illinois senator for eight years, where his style has been described as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. Factors such as his stalwart opposition to the Iraq war, a growing appreciation for his self-effacing charm and crossover appeal, and Americans' desire for fresh and future-focused leadership all seem to bode well for Obama's continuing momentum.

Race in the race
So now that Obama has burst on the scene as a real contender, the question becomes: Is America ready to elect a black man to its presidency?

For sure an Obama nomination would be a powerful update on the black condition in America and signal wide acceptance of the enormous diversity of its population. Yet, on the other hand there are pockets of resistance and reluctance in the African-American community to get on the Obama bandwagon. Some question Obama being the product of a mixed marriage -- his mother is white, his father from Kenya. Obama's origins were not the slave experience shared by many African-Americans, especially its senior political class. But that may not have as much impact in the rank and file, and among younger African-Americans.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton has been by far the most popular president among black voters, and Hillary Clinton has her share of their support. The initial reluctance among black voters should have been no surprise -- the Clintons have earned their close friendship with African-Americans. But as the viability of Obama's run becomes more apparent, a dramatic growth of his support in black America is to be expected.

Surely Obama's ideas and positions will play well in black communities: universal healthcare, technological improvements for poor and rural communities, reform for the political system, energy independence and ending the war in Iraq. The fact that racial minorities make up a disproportionate percentage of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan is not lost on people of color in this country.

For many, Sen. Obama represents a modern and positive image of blackness. He is a worldly, well-educated man married to a well-educated professional black woman. Another way that the race issue may ultimately work in Obama's favor is that it helps force those who are loudly critical to base their stand on his record and positions and steer clear of personal attacks that could be construed as racist.

But what about the election? The voting booth provides ample coverage for secret racists. Yet a newly announced Gallup poll found that 94 percent of Americans would vote for their party's African-American nominee for president before their party's woman nominee. And it's safe to assume that the same people who would reject Obama on the basis of his skin color would probably reject his progressive views even if he were white.

The votes he may "lose" due to race alone are votes he would not have had anyway. With his early and impressive following among young people, some experts are predicting an unprecedented increase of eligible young voters coming to the polls to support Obama in 2008.
Other well-known figures have paved the way for Obama's run. The first black woman to be elected to Congress, Shirley Chisholm, ran for president in 1972 and established the importance of the black vote. In 1984 and 1988, Jesse Jackson was taken seriously as a possible presidential candidate and won more states in the 1988 primaries than anyone thought possible. Throughout the 1990s former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was riding a wave of success after the first Gulf War, was widely lauded as presidential material. Had he run in 1996, he may well have won. As with Obama, his racially mixed background was seen as a plus. Finally, in 2004 both Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton ran full-blown campaigns for president.
It is unlikely that there will be a moment during the nomination process when everyone suddenly decides that the time is right for a black president. If history is any guide, these cultural shifts take on a life of their own, and only after the fact does everyone agrees it was time.

The experience paradox

In 2008, given the disastrous state of political affairs in America and its standing in the world community, the candidates with the most Washington experience appear to be headed for trouble in some popularity surveys. Polling consistently shows that many Americans want a fresh approach, a leader who is not representative of the system that has brought us to the crisis point. "Most voters want something new," says Democratic consultant Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "They want less D.C. experience and more good values."

Nevertheless, Obama does have significant experience under his belt -- eight years in the Illinois state Senate and a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his first two years in the Senate. Senator Obama has been notably productive in Washington -- he's the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions, including three Senate resolutions, and 14 bills that he co-sponsored have become law. He introduced the Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act, which works to deter nuclear proliferation; the Drinking Water Security Act of 2005, which reduces pollutants in our water; and the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, which secures health benefits for our veterans.

Obama's perspective on the topic of experience is instructive: "Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, yet they have engineered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history. So I would say the most important things are judgment and vision ... and passion for the American people and what their hopes and dreams are." He is on record as believing that given a certain necessary level of experience, sound judgment is always more important than time on the job.

Can Hillary hold on?

Many Democrats agree that their '08 candidate should be a unifier, someone who can give voice to the issues Americans agree on and reach across independents and some Republicans for votes. Hillary Clinton, despite her high name recognition, acumen for raising money, political markers transferred from Bill and popularity among the Democratic elite, will have to prove that she is not the polarizing figure that many of rank-and-file Democrats worry about. Intelligent and articulate, she nevertheless lacks the ability to connect with people that made Bill so magnetic. To quote Bill Mahar, "She's the wrong Clinton."

Others fear that once Hillary is a candidate, Republicans will relentlessly dredge up vivid reminders of the more tawdry aspects of the Clinton presidency: the Monica Lewinsky revelations, Jennifer Flowers and the impeachment attempt. Many Americans were sympathetic to Hillary throughout that drama, but it is a fair guess that voters do not want to be reminded of it daily.

There is also a long history of Hillary being the prime target of reactionary talk show hosts throughout the American South and West, who railed on nightly about Hillary and invited listeners to call in and join in the demonization of the first lady when Bill was president. The right-wing conspiracy that Hillary decried did in fact exist, and she was their target. Although attacks on Hillary were essentially groundless, almost half of the American electorate go into this election season with a negative perception of Hillary Clinton.
Finally, Hillary's refusal to "admit she made a mistake" when voting on the Iraq war is regarded by many as a strategic blunder and stands in contrast to Obama's clarity about the need to end the occupation of Iraq quickly.
Obama on record
"I think one of the things about national politics that is so exhausting is this attempt to airbrush your life," Sen. Obama has said. "This is who I am, and this is where I've come from." Some critics have called Obama the Rorschach candidate, loved not so much for his positions but for his appealing persona. The instant rock-star status he enjoys, and the media frenzy he generates, have the downside of creating the impression that he is heavy on charm and light on ideas. Yet in his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama spells out his platform in detail. His stands on the most complex and divisive issues of the day, from gay marriage to the Middle East to the death penalty, are fully explained in 384 well-written pages that the average reader can comprehend.

The book also recounts Obama's position on the Iraq war. In 2002, he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture that would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost with undetermined consequences." He warned that an invasion without strong international support could "drain our military, distract us from the war with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and further destabilize the Middle East."

Currently, Obama takes issue with those who feel the problem was one of strategy or implementation: "I have long believed it has also been a failure of conception, and that the rationale behind the war itself was misguided." In January 2007, Sen. Obama introduced legislation that would commence redeployment of troops no later than May 1 of the same year.
But with friends like democrats...

Universal healthcare, energy independence, action on global warming, more affordable education and a phased withdrawal from Iraq all will have a clear appeal to progressives. But one should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

A sizable percentage of the progressive sector may not be happy with any candidate who does not agree with them on every issue. They have already shown a surprising lack of concern for the political and practical consequences of their inflexibility. The following that Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader enjoyed are cases in point. Intractable liberal voters are like window shoppers who feel most comfortable going home empty-handed and later whining that they couldn't find something they liked. They may have been as responsible for reelecting Bush as his hard-core conservative base.

Has America under George W. Bush dropped into an abyss of moral and economic bankruptcy? Sadly, this is what our nation now represents to the rest of the world. Perhaps the most groundbreaking aspect of an Obama presidency would be the message it sends globally: The post-Bush era of American governance has arrived.

If candidate Obama's challenges are daunting, his overcoming those challenges would be all the more significant for many around the globe. An Obama presidency could vault him and all of us into a new era, where sane and compassionate policies are championed by a more united and rational citizenry. Still, world popularity doesn't elect U.S. presidents. Will Americans be driven primarily by their fear or their hope? The possibility of a new president named Barack Hussein Obama hangs in the balance.

Allan Hunt Badiner is a writer, activist and editor of three books: "Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology," "Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics" and "Mindfulness in the Marketplace: Compassionate Responses to Consumerism."

Friday, March 9, 2007

Anti Islam Summit

ANTI-ISLAM SUMMIT
Shame on CNN - Shame on Beck

by Mike Ghouse


DALLAS - As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watchedthe Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News'Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralismand the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak upagainst Islamic extremism.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held atthe Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida. The summit was supposed to beabout Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exceptionof two panelists - Hassan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the MuslimCanadian Congress and author Irshad Manji who believes the Qur'an is thebasis for being a Muslim - the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some ofthem ex-Muslims. The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit.It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to thisfraudulent gathering of Islam bashers.

The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion -hatred to Islam - who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim"Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or BanafshehZand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same:They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark SecularIslam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

The intent of the conference was bad from the start. Due to thisfact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not toparticipate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leadersof groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, includingRadwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based inWashington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted tobecome tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to berepresented in the summit became less important than speaking out againstthe intent of the summit, which was Islam bashing.

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me, "The need for a new,progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is realand undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization inMuslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur,the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religionand culture and who are credible within their community. The people whoattended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why thisconference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to providesome anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, aSyrian-American who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeeralast year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred forMuslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be Americanand Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where aMuslim now sits in Congress.

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would havebeen Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summitare questionable, and, indeed, downright dishonest. In its coverage, the St.Petersburg Times appropriately gave time to those who looked at the meetingwith a skeptical eye, noting that Georgetown University scholar YvonneHaddad said, "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakersare extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damningIslam."

In contrast, CNN's Beck paraded these personalities on TV as if they carriedweight in the Muslim world. CNN and Beck were had. In an hour-long report,Beck featured the supposed dangers the organizers faced. A woman who calledherself "Raquel Saraswati" claimed she was a practicing Muslim and expressedfears about being No. 4 on a list of Muslims ashamed of being a Muslimbecause she used to model.

As Ahmed Bedier, an official of the Council on American IslamicRelations in Florida, said: These were folks who are "cashing and bashing."I have differences with CAIR on some points, but he was in tune with mostMuslims opinion about the summit.

Beck brought Manda Zand Ervin, founder and president of Alliance ofIranian Women, a group which describes itself as a human rightsorganization, on camera, and she went so far as to say that Muslims want aglobal caliphate in which we will throw Christians and Jews into the sea.I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not wantto throw Christians and Jews into the sea. Beck failed to ask her toughquestions to find about the not so hidden agenda that appears to motivateher and so many others at this supposed Muslim gathering: fear mongering.

Shame on CNN.

Shame on Beck.

Mike Ghouse is a home builder and activist based in Dallas. He is presidentof the Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress, organizationsdedicated to peaceful co-existence. He can be reached atMikeGhouse@gmail.com.

###

Dealing with Extremists

Dealing with the Extremists

By Mike Ghouse

How do you deal with extremists? You have to have to have dynamite confidence. The first lesson I learned in my childhood was dealing with the Monkeys, the second one was on Tim Russet’s “Meet the press” program called “Interfaith in America” which is available at www.FoundationforPluralism.com.

In the program, a Catholic Nun says that the reason people are wooed towards neo-cons is because they give confidence. When there is fear, people do not really care about logic or reason; they fall for hope from any given source.

There is a famous story I've heard, where a boat load of people got caught in a rough patch in the middle of the ocean. Giant waves rocked the boat and the passengers feared for their lives. One man makes an attempt to get up, when his friend pulls him down and asks what he was doing, he says, he is going to pray. The friend laughs at him, because he was never a sincere person nor he practiced religion. The man stands up any way and loudly asks people to pray with him, he invokes (Jesus, Allah, Ganesha or.... fill in your own affiliation) God and starts asking God to help them steer through the storm. People were in awe and joined in the prayers with him. He promises safety to every one. About an hour later, the storm calms down and they safely reach the coast. As the man got out, passengers anxiously thanked him and fell on his feet (tradition) and admired him for his holiness.

The friend pulls him over and points that the promises made were false, how would you have made them, what if the boat had capsized? The man stares at his friend blankly and says “There would not have been any one to question me then".

There was no one to know, how many boats have sunk? Only those that survive can tell the story. The neo cons, Islamofascists, Hindutva are precisely that. Create the element of fear and act with confidence.

This element of confidence has not germinated in most of the moderates, they cannot fathom that hope is crucial to survival. They will laugh at themselves if they said anything silly like that man in the boat or our President.

The neo-cons use this formula every day. Our President talked about the dangers of terrorism with confidence, the neo-cons manufactured the data with ease and our gullible Congresspersons and the Senators bought the idea without even questioning it. When our President said “they hate us for our freedom” every one bought it because 9/11 was a proof that blinded our ability to think clearly. They did not ask, not a single Journalist ever asked for proof or counter “ Sir, is it our freedom or the administration’s policy that they hate?” Then our Senators and Congresspersons lost the guts to say no to invading Iraq, our President had the podium and the frightened public was ready to pray in the boat. No one dared question for the fear of being labeled un-patriotic. Thanks God for November 6th 2006. Americans are free again. It is our duty to speak up when we are wrong, we could have saved 3000 of our sons and daughters and 650,000 Iraqis and destruction in Lebanon. Our patriotism hinges on our duty to prevent our nation from going on the wrong road. Speaking up the truth, however harsh it is, is Patriotism.

“Newt Gingrich now admits that he was carrying on with another woman at the same time he was leading impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton -- proceedings based on the president's actions during an investigation born out of his carrying on with another woman.” - AOL News. This is the confidence that all the neo-cons portray, they knew there were no WMD and many other things, still they had the gall to tell it like a fact. Of course, the moderates shy away from telling bold face lies, because, they know the truth triumphs at the end.

Now, to get back to the monkeys; the very first lesson I learned in life about dealing with extremists was dealing with the Monkeys. The town I grew up was blessed with a lot of Monkeys, they were every where. As kids whenever we stopped at the fruit or snack shop and picked up some little morsel to eat, without fail, a monkey would come down and snatch the food right out of our hands and run. When chased, they would stop and stare at you and growl. That is the defining moment in that relationship; getting scared or scaring off. Over the years, I have watched it over and over again – There will be a deadly pause for a few seconds, if you stand firmly, without flinching the eyelids, the Monkey will walk away. However, the one who flinches first loses. Monkeys have strong antennas to recognize the fear in you, the thought of taking a step backwards or flinching gives the signal to the monkey that he rules.

Humans are no different, I have experimented with this work several times, and one was standing face to face with a 6.3” 250 pound guy who threatened to thrash me. I was only 5.8, and at that time 150 pounds. He backed off. I am sure one of these days some one will punch me hard.

As a moderate, when we talk about the peaceful co-existence, or stretching a hand to the extreme conservatives, I get jumped on by the other extreme. I have a choice of saying to myself “Why do I need to be in this” and simply not deal with it or I have to ask myself, if I believed in what I opine, what is my commitment to it?

I am a big fan of Tom Hopkins, the motivational trainer, who says, look at the numbers, if you have a goal of helping one in ten people, and if the first one says no to you, thank him to let you climb the first step, 9 more to go. If you lose at the first step, and fail yourselves, only you have to blame yourselves.

When you are set out to do good things, and are held back by the ultra conservatives, think about this – only 2 or 3 or 4 are opposing, let’s check if we are wrong, if we are not, thank them for caution and march forward with confidence to do what you have committed to do. As long as your leadership is not for a personal gain, you will succeed.

And my life time favorite quote that has inspired me to speak about doing things whole heartedly is as follows. “Until one is committed, there is hesitancy... Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred.… Whatever you can do or dream that you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now." – Goethe”.

Dealing with extremists, I have found that confidence is the key. Like the man in the boat or the one facing the monkey. Whoever is committed stays the course.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He has appeared on the local affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS and FOX and has been written up in the news papers. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme “good for Muslims and good for the world." The organization is driven by Qur'aan, Al-Hujurat, and Surah 49:13: O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware. Mike believes that if people can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. His articles can be found at http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ , www.MikeGhouse.net and http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Religion - The Lost Tomb

Muslims, Christians and The Lost Tomb
By Mike Ghouse Thursday, March 1, 2007


Every one is eagerly waiting for this Sunday, March 4th to witness or not to witness the documentary Lost Tomb.

There have been severe criticisms of James Cameron the producer and questions abound about the faith itself. Mark Davis writes in Dallas Morning News “This proud director has now joined the ranks of bottom-feeding junk pushers” and adds “Too tempting to make the logical leaps.”

One question that concerns me is the depth of the faith, rather paucity of the faith of the believers. One’s faith must be really weak to be frightened by a movie, and I often wonder, how will it offend the faith of millions?

It is not just Christians, Muslims will be offended too. That is nearly 3.4 billion people of the world comprising 2.1 Billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims.

Muslims believe that Jesus was taken up by God and he will return to the earth as the promised Messiah.

The Qur’aan: An-Nisaa 4: 157-158 : That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Hasn’t the faith been tested for over and over again in the last 2000 years? The Da Vinci Code and many anti-christ have come and gone, but the faith of the people remains strong. Faith is the strongest belief one develops. Like they say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I would add, faith is in the heart of the believer. Nothing will shake it, if it does, then it is not faith any more.


Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He has appeared on the local affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS and FOX and has been written up in the news papers. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme " good for Muslims and good for the world." The organization is driven by Qur'aan, Al-Hujurat, Surah 49:13: O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware. Mike believes that if people can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. His articles can be found at http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ , http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/022807dnedimarkdavis.52a7e69.html
Mark Davis: James Cameron has no business messing with faith
'Lost Tomb' producer joins bottom-feeders as he spits on religion and science
06:28 AM CST on Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Archaeologists need to make a deal with filmmaker James Cameron. "You keep making blockbusters like Titanic and Terminator," they should tell him, "and leave the artifact analysis to us."
That would honor the arenas of both science and faith, the two concepts savaged by Mr. Cameron's latest attempt at profit.

I have thoroughly enjoyed his past attempts at profit, and some of his money came from me. From the two giant movies mentioned above to the first Alien sequel to one of my all-time favorites, The Abyss , Mr. Cameron's name has usually been a guarantee of onscreen excellence.
Not any more.

This proud director has now joined the ranks of bottom-feeding junk pushers. The occasion is his Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, set to air on that otherwise admirable network at 8 p.m. Sunday.

Barring a last-minute burst of good judgment, this detestable program will be consumed by an audience of some size, spurred by the desire to see if the man who showed us Leonardo DiCaprio proclaiming "I'm king of the world!" has now found the remains of the King of the Jews.

I'm sorry, do I sound skeptical? Then I have aimed too timidly. My goal is to sound colossally repulsed, for there is something in Mr. Cameron's low exploit to offend nearly everyone.

It will offend the faith of millions who have about had it with pop culture hacks casting doubt on millennia of Christian beliefs. This unenlightened orgy hit a peak with the recent bug-eyed devotion to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, an amateurish book turned into a medium-quality Ron Howard movie of the same name.
Mr. Brown wanted it both ways. He wanted to be treated with the respect afforded a genuine theologian, yet he could always shrug when the questions got too tough, falling back on the safety net of a work of fiction.
At least Mr. Howard never delivered pseudo-authentic lectures on Bible history; he just wanted to make a profitable Tom Hanks movie.

That he did, and its audience, combined with the millions who read the book, now contains countless people who believe that Jesus got married and had a daughter.

The scolding I wish to deliver brings with it a responsibility to a stratospheric level of objectivity. That said, I'll assert flat out that Jesus may well have been a family man. My faith tells me otherwise, but faith is belief based on factors other than empirical evidence.

But willingness to doubt is one thing. Willingness to make things up is another. Not satisfied to spit on religion, Mr. Cameron also zestfully offends the standards of science.
My gripe with the cult of faux studiousness that comprised The Da Vinci Code zealots was that they felt as though they were immersed in substantive, carefully vetted historical analysis rather than clumsy conspiracy ramblings based on the flimsiest of premises.
Mr. Cameron's Lost Tomb is an even emptier exercise. His assertion is that skeletal remains found in a Jerusalem suburb in 1980 simply must be the remains of Jesus' nuclear family: wife Mary Magdalene, son Judah – hey, the Virgin Mary herself might have been the contents of one of the chests unveiled with a flourish at a news conference to hawk the documentary.

"I think we have a very compelling case," says Mr. Cameron. Perhaps he will forgive Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who first found the remains, who disagrees completely, citing that Jesus' family roots lie elsewhere and that the names found on the sides of the vessels are all fairly common, including "Jesus," found 71 times over the years.

But it's just too tempting. Too tempting to make the logical leaps. Too tempting to taunt the faithful with "evidence" that their Bible – and the resurrection that is the basis for all of Christianity – are flawed tales. Too tempting to make money from such reckless journeys in fake scholarship.

To question and speculate about the underpinnings of faith is a fair intellectual exercise. But to make wild and hurtful assertions from such a paper-thin platform reveals audacity that is hard to forgive.
Mark Davis is heard weekdays on News/Talk WBAP-AM (820) and nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. WBAP airtime is 9 a.m. to noon. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Understanding Jainism

Understanding Jainism

Thanks to all of you who attended the program on Understanding Hinduism on Sunday, February 25th at Crowne Plaza Hotel in Addison. By the end of this week, we will publish the summary of the report, and 3 columns on Hinduism written in 600 words each. The pictures will be uploaded and we will try to upload the meeting on you tube. In addition, I found a good video presentation of, What is common Islam and Hinduism by a Muslim Scholar. You'll learn a little bit more about Hinduism in it.


Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 6 PM
Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14315 Midway Road, Addison, TX 75001
(On Midway, between Spring Valley & Belt Line).

J ainism may not be familiar to many, but it is nearly a 8,500** (Dr. Parikh's speech below) years old Philosophy. Dallas has a Jain temple and a new temple is being planned as well. Jainism has a very unique perspective about God and creation. Those who attend the event will gain an insight into Jainism. Part of the Mission statement of the Foundation for Pluralism was influenced by Jain philosophy of Anekant.a.vad, and Mahatma Gandhi's principles of non-violence flew from Jainism.

The Foundation for Pluralism is pleased to present an educational series on understanding the wisdom and beauty of each religion. The goal is to bring people of different faiths together and provide a platform for them to share about their beliefs, their systems and rituals, while expanding the knowledge zone of each group.

We invite Jains around the world to write a column on Jainism, with a limit of 600 words . It is difficult, but can be done. There is a magic in that number in terms of comprehension and attention. Please send the email to:: FoundationforPluralism@gmail.com

Speakers:
Dr. Vastupal Parikh and an author of books on Jainism
Dr. Pradeep Shah, teacher of Jainism in Dallas, Mike Ghouse, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas.

Q & A
Session is followed by the presentation by the speakers.
Come prepared with all the questions you may have.

The very purpose of religion is to give a sense of balance to an individual and then create that symbiotic balance between the individual and what is around him or her. Spirituality and Arrogance are inversely proportional to each other. Greater the arrogance, lower the spirituality and vice versa. Greater humility amounts to greater spirituality.

The event is a tribute to those who are willing to think beyond the box. We have planned the educational series for all the scripted established religions this year and eventually, hope to include all faiths. Just so we know the unique ways the lord is worshipped.

We hope at a few of the attendees would walk out with an open mind and an open heart towards their fellow beings. It is difficult to shed the prejudices, but once we do, there is genuine freedom (Mukti, Moksha, Salvation, Nirvana.) in it. We are committed to presenting the beauty and wisdom of each religion.

PLEASE RSVP to:ConfirmAttendance@gmail.com (it helps us plan the refreshments and seating)

We invite sponsorship for each event or any given event; your responsibility would include sharing part or full expenses for the facility, refreshments and soft drinks for attendees.

FOUNDATION FOR PLURALISM : EVENTS http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/

Abstract of the Speech by Dr. Vastupal Parikh
(March 25, 2007 at Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, Texas)

Jainism is one of the oldest living spiritual philosophies. However, it is little known, probably because Jainism is really neither a faith nor a religion in the sense in which most of us now understand these terms.

Jains do indeed follow the teachings of the Jinas – a series of twenty four Tirthankaras, or teachers, spanning the period 8,500 BCE to 600 BCE. These Tirthankars preached that the universe governs itself by a set of natural laws, and that - everyone can shape his/her destiny. They developed a spiritual path for mastering one’s own destiny, but did not claim that they preached an unalterable truth, nor did they demand that their concept of natural theology be accepted through the mere act of faith. On the contrary, they insisted that anyone who wished to attain the enlightenment and bliss they had attained should experiment for themselves, by embarking on the suggested spiritual path and retaining what was useful and abandoning what was not. The ultimate reward is complete understanding of “Absolute Reality” and Moksha, (total liberation). Moksha empowers one’s soul with unlimited perception, knowledge, happiness, and unlimited energy. However, those who could not complete the journey would still reap the rewards of unprecedented happiness, peace, and tranquility.

Thus, Jainism is an experiment-based logical system. It shows a proven path to liberation, but advises us to develop our faith in it on the basis of personal intuition (rational vision), critical or rational study of the vision (rational knowledge), and personal experimentation and experience of the journey (rational lifestyle). These three – Rational Vision, Rational Knowledge, and Rational Lifestyle – form the core of Jainism and are called ‘the Three Jewels.”

Jain philosophy is classified as ‘natural theology’ because its world vision is based on a self-governing Nature (or Universe) as a superpower. Its laws and natural principles apply not just for humans and not just locally, but far beyond throughout the entire universe. The universe in this vision consists of six eternal entities - Soul, Matter, Space, Time, the Principle of Change and the Principle of Resistance to change (stability). Every thing in the universe results from the natural interaction of these six entities. Every living being (regardless of its form) is a soul entangled with matter, and ‘moksha’ (liberation) is simply a freeing of the soul from its entanglement. This world vision has the soul as the most important entity and has given rise to the three principal doctrines, known as the ‘Triple ‘A’s of Jainism. These are:
Ahimsa (non-violence) - respect and reverence for every living being
Anekantwada (multi-faceted reality) - consideration of different opinions and viewpoints to gain a better understanding of the truth (reality), which has many facets, and
Aprigraha - limiting personal needs and possessions, because these not only harm the environment but also generate unreasonable attachment to objects that impede spiritual progress.

Thus Jainism is neither a ‘faith’ nor a ‘religion’, but a rational philosophy for spiritual progress, well being of all living beings, personal and global peace, and environmental protection. Jains have followed this system for centuries as a non-violent, peaceful community. Its three ‘A’s provide much needed wisdom and direction for alleviating, if not resolving, many of the problems threatening our planet in the 21st century. Current world challenges include fundamentalism, terrorism, war, global poverty, and human and environmental degradation. Jainism offers advice in addressing these issues, and the time has come to examine this philosophy carefully and perhaps take its world vision seriously.