RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Obama Has Turned the Economy Around Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15792"><span class="small">Barbra Streisand, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 01 April 2015 11:27

Streisand writes: "In the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama took the helm of a sinking economic ship and help to right it."

Barbra Streisand. (photo: unknown)
Barbra Streisand. (photo: unknown)


Obama Has Turned the Economy Around

By Barbra Streisand, Reader Supported News

01 April 15

 

n the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama took the helm of a sinking economic ship and helped to right it. The unemployment rate is now once again at pre-recession levels -- the lowest in seven years (5.5%).

President Obama's Administration, with only opposition from the Republicans, has steadily helped put more than 11 million Americans back to work in the private sector. In the strongest period of American manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, the sector has added more than 750,000 jobs since February 2010. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes, the economy is "now adding jobs at a rate not seen since the Clinton years." The dollar is on its fastest rise in 40 years; its value has increased 14% in this first quarter alone and it's the strongest it's been in 12 years compared to the Euro.

Maybe most important, the number of long-term unemployed is down by 1.1 million. Why are the Republicans so silent about the good news? They claim to be the party of "jobs." Perhaps they knew their history.

PBS pointed out a study from the "strictly non-partisan National Bureau for Economic Research" that shows "under Democratic presidents, per capita GDP has been higher; job creation has been stronger; decreases in unemployment have been greater; the S&P 500 stock index has been higher; corporate profits have been bigger; and real wages and labor productivity have increased."

As Brad Plumer also noted in the Washington Post, "Since World War II, there's been a strikingly consistent pattern in American politics: The economy does much better when a Democrat is in the White House... the U.S. economy has grown at an average real rate of 4.35 percent under Democratic presidents and just 2.54 percent under Republicans." If one drops the Eisenhower years, it is far worse for the GOP.

This pattern holds true under President Obama. The conservative Wall Street Journal had to admit, "American families have made major progress cutting their debt burdens, putting them in a stronger position to drive spending and growth. Total U.S. household debt was about 107% of disposable income in the fourth quarter, down from 108% in the previous quarter and well over 130% before the recession." Under President Obama, the deficit continues to fall even more since being cut in half by 2013 from 2009. In his first term, the president also cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family.

The frustration now is the lack of wage increases -- an obstacle that must be overcome both by raising the minimum wage and our corporations rewarding the increase in productivity among our workers. Of course there's not been an encouraging word from the GOP, which opposes any increase in the federal minimum wage. In fact, their 2016 frontrunner, Jeb Bush, does not think there should be a federal minimum wage.

The GOP does not care to understand the late Senator Paul Wellstone's maxim, "We all do better when we all do better." Increasing wages means more economic demand for more goods and services, and boosts the economy. Somehow, Republicans remain intent on cutting taxes for the already rich and devastating domestic spending.

The House once again just proposed the "Ryan" budget full of unexplained and mysterious trillions of dollars in savings while cutting revenue, savaging domestic spending and proposing vouchers to purchase insurance instead of traditional Medicare. As Krugman writes, if it "were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that's just in the first decade." With the budget deficit radically dropping under President Obama and the increasingly better jobs reports, why would we believe these GOP austerity measures would help average families? We don't because they won't. Krugman again: "The simplest way to understand [the GOP budget proposals] is surely to suppose that they are intended to do what they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary families poorer."

They're also intent on misrepresenting the economic facts of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the ACA, 16. 4 million previously uninsured adults now have health care coverage under the ACA. The Brookings Institution pointed out in March that "more than 4.2 million households, or 7.5 million people, are likely to qualify for both the [Earned Income Tax Credit] and [ACA's] premium tax credit" - - this in addition to improved, comprehensive health care coverage. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projected the ACA will actually cost $109 billion less than previously anticipated. And last year, the LA Times reported, "Insurance premiums are lower than anticipated, the Affordable Care Act will cost $9 billion less than previously estimated and the provision designed to buffer insurance companies from risk will actually raise revenue, not function as any sort of federal government bailout."

The Republican response to how the ACA is helping Americans and heath care costs is to try to repeal it (56 times as of February) and attempt to hobble it with litigation. GOP presidential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, who this week vowed to "repeal every word of Obamacare," hypocritically receives health insurance for his family through the Federal "Obamacare" exchange.

Are Republicans who control both houses of Congress interested in governing or will they remain stuck in their ideological corner? Their current approval rating of 11% does not seem to faze them, so the signs are not encouraging. In an unprecedented move, 47 Senate Republicans just signed a letter deliberately undermining both our President and important allies' in the negotiation to halt nuclear arms proliferation by Iran.

So it looks like the facts be damned, the GOP has decided that the ideological corner is where they will remain. The voters will have a chance next year to change this.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama Is Not Anti-War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 31 March 2015 13:08

Timm writes: "Despite what some Republicans and neo-conservatives claim, Obama is plenty militaristic. That's part of the problem in the region, not the best solution."

President Barack Obama. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
President Barack Obama. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


Obama Is Not Anti-War

By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK

31 March 15

 

Despite what some Republicans and neo-conservatives claim, Obama is plenty militaristic. That’s part of the problem in the region, not the best solution

othing sums up the warped foreign policy fantasy world in which Republicans live more than when House Speaker John Boehner recently called Obama an “anti-war president” under which America “is sitting on the sidelines” in the increasingly chaotic Middle East.

If Obama is an anti-war president, he’s the worst anti-war president in history. In the last six years, the Obama administration has bombed seven countries in the Middle East alone and armed countless more with tens of billions in dollars in weapons. But that’s apparently not enough for Republicans. As the Isis war continues to expand and Yemen descends into civil war, everyone is still demanding more: If only we bombed the region a little bit harder, then they’ll submit.

In between publishing a new rash of overt sociopathic “Bomb Iran” op-eds, Republicans and neocons are circulating a new talking point: Obama doesn’t have a “coherent” or “unifying” strategy in the Middle East. But you can’t have a one-size-fits-all strategy in an entire region that is almost incomprehensibly complex – which is why no one, including the Republicans criticizing Obama, actually has an answer for what that strategy should be. It’s clear that this new talking point is little more than thinly veiled code for we’re not killing enough Muslims or invading enough countries.

Nobody will say that they want US troops on the ground to fight Isis, of course, since public support for such action is crumbling.

But as the Council on Foreign Relations’ Douglas Dillon Fellow Micah Zenko tweeted recently, “If 30 years of US as military hegemon in the Middle East resulted in the region today, why would more suddenly stabilize things?” No one seems to be willing to face the stark fact that US involvement is as much the cause of the instability as it is the alleged solution.

Those clamoring for more war are detached from reality: the US is already escalating – not pulling back – its involvement across the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the president has quietly delayed pulling US troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year so they can continue special forces raids and drone strikes, despite loudly celebrating the supposed “end” of combat operations during the State of the Union in January. In Iraq, US forces escalated its airstrikes in the so-called battle to re-take Tikrit, which the New York Times editorial board decried as a folly, but received scant scrutiny elsewhere. The Pentagon also confirmed last week that they expect the Isis war to last “3+ years.”

And if you think the United States is sitting on the sidelines in Yemen just because it’s not US planes physically launching the missiles (yet), you should have your head examined. The US has given Saudi Arabia an astronomical $90bn in military equipment and weapons over the past four years and, as the Washington Post reported, it will play a “huge” role in any fighting. US drones are also still patrolling Yemeni skies and even helping Saudi Arabia “decide what and where to bomb”, according to the Wall Street Journal.

What would his critics have Obama do in Yemen, for example? He had already authorized dozens of drones strikes over the years (which backfired and many people think strengthened al-Qaida). He gave the Yemeni government $500mn in heavy weaponry and military gear, all of which is now completely unaccounted for and likely in the hands of US enemies.

This is America’s modus operandi in the Middle East: give its friends a ton of weapons and watch the weapons fall into enemy hands one way or another. In Afghanistan, the US gave the Afghanistan government nearly 500,000 weapons that are now unaccounted for (and that was a couple years ago). In Libya, shipments of arms reportedly sent by the CIA to Libyan rebels in 2011 via the Qataris ended up, in many cases, in the hands of Islamic militants, as the New York Times reported. Neither stopped the Obama administration from arming rebels in Syria, where many of the weapons promptly fell into enemy hands as well.

Virtually every month in Iraq, another large cache of US weapons ends up being commandeered by Isis or al-Qaida, either from Iraqi soldiers abandoning all the arms the US has given them over the past decade or from US air drops that land in enemy hands, as we saw in September, October, November, February, and a couple times in March. Isis has commandeered so many US weapons that there’s even a Buzzfeed photo listicle about it.

Photographer Gregg Carlstrom succinctly summed it up last week as Saudi Arabia started to drop bombs on Yemen: “US praises US ally for bombing US-equipped militia aligned with US foe who is partnering with US to fight another US-equipped militia.”

It’d be nice if the public debate over America’s role in the Middle East even acknowledged our culpability for some of the problems in the region, rather than steamroll over it on the way to war in yet another country.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Tell Wall Street Where They Can Shove Their Money Print
Tuesday, 31 March 2015 11:41

Galindez writes: "The best thing that could happen for America would be Wall Street divesting from the Democratic Party. The party would no longer be owned by the corporate Oligarchy and America would finally have an opposition party."

The Wall Street sign outside the New York Stock Exchange. (photo: Chip East/Reuters)
The Wall Street sign outside the New York Stock Exchange. (photo: Chip East/Reuters)


Tell Wall Street Where They Can Shove Their Money

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

31 March 15

 

Divest, Divest, Divest...

he best thing that could happen for America would be Wall Street divesting from the Democratic Party. The party would no longer be owned by the corporate oligarchy. America would finally have an opposition party, a party to fight the billionaire class and represent the working class.

I hear many of you screaming, “But we have the Socialists, the Greens...” We have a two party system. Until that changes, third parties do nothing more than provide a place for a protest vote. I support major reforms to our political system, and maybe if the Democratic Party were no longer owned by corporations it could be a vehicle to implement those reforms. We need a Pro-Democracy movement in America, and Wall Street surrendering the Democratic Party back to the people would be a great first step.

If we could be sure that political contributions were just individuals or organizations giving money to candidates they support, then private financing of our political candidates could be a good thing. However, we know that most of the money that flows into a candidate’s coffers are nothing more than bribes. For example, Citibank board members likely hate some of the positions that many of the candidates they donate to advocate. They are not donating to help candidates get elected – let’s say Chuck Schumer, they know he will win – they are buying influence. They want a seat at the table, and they want the power to extort support for an issue that benefits them. Their bribery should be illegal.

According to a recent report by Reuters, “Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.” “Symbolic protest?” Sounds like extortion to me – but hey, they have already been shown to be above the law, so they have nothing to worry about.

In reality we are only talking about $15,000 contributions from four banks, a drop in the bucket. These contributions would go unnoticed in Washington. Too bad they were’t really talking about all of their money. Give it all to the Republicans and make them further beholden to you. Wall Street money only corrupts and then limits the ability of politicians to speak with their own voice. Free the Democrats ... Divest Now!

When I was a kid, the labor unions had a much greater influence on the Democratic Party. Some would say they owned the party the same way the corporations own the party today. So maybe it is still the lesser of two evils, but I for one would rather return to the day when labor and other “special interest” groups had a greater influence over the Democrats, and the wealthy were represented by the Republicans. The shift started in the early eighties when a panicked Democratic Party was being out-raised by the Republicans 10 to 1. A freshman congressman by the name of Tony Coelho took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and began to aggressively seek corporate money. Coehlo had people like Tip O’Neill rubbing elbows with traditionally Republican donors. Today you will find that most corporations give equally to Republicans and Democrats.

The result is that the groups Democrats used to count on for support are no longer as influential. Labor, women’s groups, environmental groups, peace and justice groups ... are no longer as instrumental in shaping the direction of the Democratic Party.

Ideally, we would have a more vibrant democracy in which multiple views were represented by multiple parties, but that will take serious political reform and is unrealistic today. The reality is that Wall Street and these banks are just blowing smoke. They will not give up the Democratic Party anytime soon. Oh, but imagine what we could accomplish if they did.


Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | David Brooks Would Like Gay People to Lower Their Voices Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Tuesday, 31 March 2015 10:18

Pierce writes: "David Brooks, who would like all those hysterical gay people to start using their inside voices and to understand that their desire for equal protection under the law would be better served if they understood the feelings of the people who think they are sodomite insects who are all going to hell."

David Brooks. (photo: David Levene/Guardian UK)
David Brooks. (photo: David Levene/Guardian UK)


David Brooks Would Like Gay People to Lower Their Voices

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

31 March 15

 

In which David Brooks would like gay people to lower their voices.

efore we deal with the well-mannered moral monster that is David Brooks, we should dispense with some of the WeaselSpeak that has attended Mike Pence's successful attempt at killing his tourist economy. There is no doubt -- none -- that the law Pence signed is directly aimed at the rights of LGBT citizens -- and specifically, at their right to get married. It isn't about protecting the rights of the Amish in Decatur County to grow their beards, and it isn't about allowing the remaining members of the Kickapoo Nation to use whatever they want in their religious rituals. It is about allowing people to discriminate against their fellow citizens in thousands of private transactions. The history of this bill begins almost to the day on which Indiana's attempts to ban marriage equality failed in the courts. Its primary supporters admitted its real purpose right from jump.

Micah Clark of the American Family Association explained to The Indianapolis Star that the bill would allow small businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples and also that it would allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. The Indiana Family Institute made an end-of-year fundraising pitch that promoted the legislation, noting examples of small businesses who were facing discrimination complaints from same-sex couples.

And, if its purpose was as anodyne as Pence now makes it out to be, and if Pence is as blindsided by the backlash as he's now pretending to be, then why did he sign it in a secret ceremony in which he was surrounded by some of the state's most serious professional homophobes?

(And, not for nothing, but when you've lost Dan Quayle's old family newspaper, it's time to wonder how far off the diving board you've actually jumped.)

Which brings us to David Brooks, who would like all those hysterical gay people to start using their inside voices and to understand that their desire for equal protection under the law would be better served if they understood the feelings of the people who think they are sodomite insects who are all going to hell. No link because fk him, that's why.

As a matter of principle, it is simply the case that religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect, even in cases where it leads to disagreements as fundamental as the definition of marriage. Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.

"Morality is a politeness of the soul"? What kind of dog's breakfast is that? Jesus His Own Self said he brought not peace, but a sword. If Brooks wants to stand with religious-based bigotry, with the Micah Clarks of the world, he should just do so and stop wasting all of our time as a sewage-treatment plant for the worst instincts in our politics. "Neighborly problems"? If Brooks wants to say that discrimination against LGBT citizens is not really discrimination worthy of the law's attention, he should just say so, and stop wasting all our time putting Bull Connor in a $500 suit. Here's a "creative accommodation" for you. Don't be a bigot.

I have to go now. Moral Hazard, the Irish setter owned by David Brooks for photo-op purposes, is laying on his back out in the yard, without even the energy or inspiration to lick his own balls. I'm worried about him, frankly.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why I Converted to Islam Print
Tuesday, 31 March 2015 08:07

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "When you convert to an unfamiliar or unpopular religion, it invites criticism of one's intelligence, patriotism and sanity. I should know. Even though I became a Muslim more than 40 years ago, I'm still defending that choice."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: unknown)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: unknown)


Why I Converted to Islam

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Al Jazeera America

31 March 15

 

It’s not easy being Muslim in America, but my choice was a spiritual transformation

was born Lew Alcindor. Now I’m Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

The transition from Lew to Kareem was not merely a change in celebrity brand name — like Sean Combs to Puff Daddy to Diddy to P. Diddy — but a transformation of heart, mind and soul. I used to be Lew Alcindor, the pale reflection of what white America expected of me. Now I’m Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the manifestation of my African history, culture and beliefs.

For most people, converting from one religion to another is a private matter requiring intense scrutiny of one’s conscience. But when you’re famous, it becomes a public spectacle for one and all to debate. And when you convert to an unfamiliar or unpopular religion, it invites criticism of one’s intelligence, patriotism and sanity. I should know. Even though I became a Muslim more than 40 years ago, I’m still defending that choice.

Unease with celebrity

I was introduced to Islam while I was a freshman at UCLA. Although I had already achieved a certain degree of national fame as a basketball player, I tried hard to keep my personal life private. Celebrity made me nervous and uncomfortable. I was still young, so I couldn’t really articulate why I felt so shy of the spotlight. Over the next few years, I started to understand it better.

Part of my restraint was the feeling that the person the public was celebrating wasn’t the real me. Not only did I have the usual teenage angst of becoming a man, but I was also playing for one of the best college basketball teams in the country and trying to maintain my studies. Add to that the weight of being black in America in 1966 and ’67, when James Meredith was ambushed while marching through Mississippi, the Black Panther Party was founded, Thurgood Marshall was appointed as the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and a race riot in Detroit left 43 dead, 1,189 injured and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed.

I came to realize that the Lew Alcindor everyone was cheering wasn’t really the person they imagined. They wanted me to be the clean-cut example of racial equality. The poster boy for how anybody from any background — regardless of race, religion or economic standing — could achieve the American dream. To them, I was the living proof that racism was a myth.

I knew better. Being 7-foot-2 and athletic got me there, not a level playing field of equal opportunity. But I was also fighting a strict upbringing of trying to please those in authority. My father was a cop with a set of rules, I attended a Catholic school with priests and nuns with more rules, and I played basketball for coaches who had even more rules. Rebellion was not an option.

Still, I was discontented. Growing up in the 1960s, I wasn’t exposed to many black role models. I admired Martin Luther King Jr. for his selfless courage and Shaft for kicking ass and getting the girl. Otherwise, the white public’s consensus seemed to be that blacks weren’t much good. They were either needy downtrodden folks who required white people’s help to get the rights they were due or radical troublemakers wanting to take away white homes and jobs and daughters. The “good ones” were happy entertainers, either in show business or sports, who were expected to show gratitude for their good fortune. I knew this reality was somehow wrong — that something had to change. I just didn’t know what it meant for me.

Much of my early awakening came from reading “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” as a freshman. I was riveted by Malcolm’s story of how he came to realize that he was the victim of institutional racism that had imprisoned him long before he landed in an actual prison. That’s exactly how I felt: imprisoned by an image of who I was supposed to be. The first thing he did was push aside the Baptist religion that his parents had brought him up in and study Islam. To him, Christianity was a foundation of the white culture responsible for enslaving blacks and supporting the racism that permeated society. His family was attacked by the Christianity-spouting Ku Klux Klan, and his home was burned by the KKK splinter group the Black Legion.

Malcolm X’s transformation from petty criminal to political leader inspired me to look more closely at my upbringing and forced me to think more deeply about my identity. Islam helped him find his true self and gave him the strength not only to face hostility from both blacks and whites but also to fight for social justice. I began to study the Quran.

Conviction and defiance

This decision set me on an irreversible course to spiritual fulfillment. But it definitely wasn’t a smooth course. I made serious mistakes along the way. Then again, maybe the path isn’t supposed to be smooth; maybe it’s supposed to be filled with obstacles and detours and false discoveries in order to challenge and hone one’s beliefs. As Malcolm X said, “I guess a man’s entitled to make a fool of himself if he’s ready to pay the cost.”

I paid the cost.

As I said earlier, I was brought up to respect rules — and especially those who enforced the rules, such as teachers, preachers and coaches. I’d always been an exceptional student, so when I wanted to know more about Islam, I found a teacher in Hammas Abdul-Khaalis. During my years playing with the Milwaukee Bucks, Hammas’ version of Islam was a joyous revelation. Then in 1971, when I was 24, I converted to Islam and became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (meaning “the noble one, servant of the Almighty”).

The question I’m often asked is why I had to pick a religion so foreign to American culture and a name that was hard for people to pronounce. Some fans took it very personally, as if I had firebombed their church while tearing up an American flag. Actually, I was rejecting the religion that was foreign to my American culture and embracing one that was part of my black African heritage. (An estimated 15 to 30 percent of slaves brought from Africa were Muslims.) Fans thought I joined the Nation of Islam, an American Islamic movement founded in Detroit in 1930. Although I was greatly influenced by Malcolm X, a leader in the Nation of Islam, I chose not to join because I wanted to focus more on the spiritual rather than political aspects. Eventually, Malcolm rejected the group right before three of its members assassinated him.

My parents were not pleased by my conversion. Though they weren’t strict Catholics, they had raised me to believe in Christianity as the gospel. But the more I studied history, the more disillusioned I became with the role of Christianity in subjugating my people. I knew, of course, that the Second Vatican Council in 1965 declared slavery an “infamy” that dishonored God and was a poison to society. But for me, it was too little, too late. The failure of the church to use its might and influence to stop slavery and instead to justify it as somehow connected to original sin made me angry. Papal bulls (e.g., “Dum Diversas” and “Romanus Pontifex”) condoned enslaving native people and stealing their lands.

And while I realize that many Christians risked their lives and families to fight slavery and that it would not have been ended without them, I found it hard to align myself with the cultural institutions that had turned a blind eye to such outrageous behavior in direct violation of their most sacred beliefs.

The adoption of a new name was an extension of my rejection of all things in my life that related to the enslavement of my family and people. Alcindor was a French planter in the West Indies who owned my ancestors. My forebears were Yoruba people, from present day Nigeria. Keeping the name of my family’s slave master seemed somehow to dishonor them. His name felt like a branded scar of shame.

My devotion to Islam was absolute. I even agreed to marry a woman whom Hammas suggested for me, despite my strong feelings for another woman. Ever the team player, I did as “Coach” Hammas recommended. I also followed his advice not to invite my parents to the wedding — a mistake that took me more than a decade to rectify. Although I had my doubts about some of Hammas’ instruction, I rationalized them away because of the great spiritual fulfillment I was experiencing.

But my independent spirit finally emerged. Not content to receive all my religious knowledge from one man, I pursued my own studies. I soon found that I disagreed with some of Hammas’ teachings about the Quran, and we parted ways. In 1973, I traveled to Libya and Saudi Arabia to learn enough Arabic to study the Quran on my own. I emerged from this pilgrimage with my beliefs clarified and my faith renewed.

From that year to this, I have never wavered or regretted my decision to convert to Islam. When I look back, I wish I could have done it in a more private way, without all the publicity and fuss that followed. But at the time I was adding my voice to the civil rights movement by denouncing the legacy of slavery and the religious institutions that had supported it. That made it more political than I had intended and distracted from what was, for me, a much more personal journey.

Many people are born into their religion. For them it is mostly a matter of legacy and convenience. Their belief is based on faith, not just in the teachings of the religion but also in the acceptance of that religion from their family and culture. For the person who converts, it is a matter of fierce conviction and defiance. Our belief is based on a combination of faith and logic because we need a powerful reason to abandon the traditions of our families and community to embrace beliefs foreign to both. Conversion is a risky business because it can result in losing family, friends and community support.

Some fans still call me Lew, then seem annoyed when I ignore them. They don’t understand that their lack of respect for my spiritual choice is insulting. It’s as if they see me as a toy action figure, existing solely to decorate their world as they see fit, rather than as an individual with his own life.

Kermit the Frog famously complained, “It’s not easy being green.” Try being Muslim in America. According to a Pew Research Center poll on attitudes about major religious groups, the U.S. public has the least regard for Muslims — slightly less than it has for atheists — even though Islam is the third-largest faith in America. The acts of aggression, terrorism and inhumanity committed by those claiming to be Muslims have made the rest of the world afraid of us. Without really knowing the peaceful practices of most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, they see only the worst examples. Part of my conversion to Islam is accepting the responsibility to teach others about my religion, not to convert them but to co-exist with them through mutual respect, support and peace. One world does not have to mean one religion, just one belief in living in peace.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 Next > End >>

Page 2512 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN