Before the tragic attack on the World Trade Center, I had a grudging respect for the Muslim faithful. They seemed the most spiritual and religiously conservative group on the planet, untouched by the Western immorality and atheism. There was the accusation that was only because of the lack of educational opportunities, but even those who went to Western and U.S. schools went back home without losing religious convictions. There was something about Islam that a person who had their own strong faith convictions had to admire.
When the infamous 9-11 attack happened, there was hope that citizens of the United States could learn something about themselves out of the deadly chaos. Perhaps the Christian nation as a whole would re-evaluate the moral direction it had taken. They would take notice of Muslims and look within to question how they had lost their spiritual way. Certainly they could contrast the strength of conviction and moral cohesion of such a large group of people and come away determined to change. For one brief week it seemed possible.
That illusion was quickly shattered. It didn’t take very long for people to continue going about their business like always. Each generation seeming more intent than the next to rid themselves of religious and moral guidance. Meanwhile, the extremist Islamist leaders ended up sharing the anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-United States stances of Western liberals. That wasn’t a surprise, but how they played off each other was. They ended up doing the your enemy is my enemy dance. The terrorists came off not as moral crusaders, but political despots eager for attention with the blood of the dead. Still, the question stands how Muslims remain faithful stalwarts in such large numbers while Christianity, and Mormonism included, continues to stumble. Continue reading
Were you impressed by it?
What did you like about it?
What didn’t you like about it?
What could he have done better?
If passed as is, do you think his plan will make a positive/negative difference?
I’ll add my comments later…
So, how do you think each of them did?
How could they have done better?
Did you change your mind concerning any of the candidates?
Who did best? Who did worst?
What was the biggest gaffe of the evening?
I’ll add my comments soon, as the discussion kicks in.
(Editors’ note: this is the first of what we hope will be literally thousands of posts by the great Daniel Bartholomew, who needs no introduction, except to say he’s been blogging about Mormon subjects for many years.)
Yeah Samake is a convert to the LDS Church, a BYU graduate, mayor of Ouelessebougou and a candidate to become president of Mali in 2012. You can find his website here.
On the “About Myself” portion of his website is written an interesting tidbit about how Yeah Samake allows some of our common religious terminology to enter into his political work:
Samake has instituted a council of tribal elders, what he likes to call his “Elder’s Quorum,” where each village sends two trusted elders to the council. It keeps leaders accountable and has become an agent of communication to the communities.
So, along with the two Mormons seeking to be a presidential candidate here in the United States, LDS people should also pay attention to how the presidential race in Mali goes for brother Yeah Samake. Good luck to him!
I was in an MSHA class this week and one of the subjects is a Federal laws passed called “miner’s rights.” Essentially its a law that guarantees that a company cannot fire or harass a person if he or she, in good faith, refuses to work in an unsafe environment. Likewise, the laws protect a person if they file a complaint on their company, or testify against their own company in a court. The instructor of our class mentioned that he had testified in court against his own company 8 times and has filed complaints against his own company 4 times and that he had no fear of reprisal due to these laws.
I confess I think laws like Miner’s Rights are a good thing. In fact, I think they are a great thing. Laws like Miner’s Rights is one of many reason why I can’t be an ideological Libertarian. From a purely ideological point of view, Libertarianism believes that government (and therefore laws) should only provide enforcement of contracts, punishments for people that performed an initial use of force, or for country defense. Sometimes they do throw in some very limited public goods. Sometimes they claim there is no need even for government owned fire engines and that the private sector can handle it better.
Such a philosophy would be against “Miner’s Rights” on the grounds that it’s unnecessary because capitalism will create equivalent or better regulations and environments on their own without government interference. For example, the mining companies will be forced to introduce their own superior safety standards and create their own ‘miner’s rights’ that they enforce internally because it’s the only way they can get the best talent to work for them. If they don’t, they can’t compete and they go out of business.
I confess, I just don’t believe it. Continue reading