Iranian/British Standoff

Barganing Chip - that's the first thought that came to mind when I was reading about how the Iranians captured 15 British saliors/marines for allegedly crossing over into Iranian territorial waters. Something that I've found helpful was a timeline of events provided by bbc.com on the issue (which I find to be one of the best sources of international news). The timeline also has a map that is quite helpful in determining what happened where. Another good source in this matter is an Iranian viewpoint by the editor of an independent Tehran-based newspaper here. While this viewpoint is not as indepth on the matter as some may have liked, it gives a little more insight on where Iran and its various political factions may be comming from.

A picture from the timeline of events is presented here (image copyright of bbc.com).

1. Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2. HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3. Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4. After UK points this out, Iran provides corrected position, now within Iranian waters
   

Given this play of events, I'm much more inclined to believe the British side of the story. Makes you wonder though exactly what they were thinking. Perhaps they saw it as an opportunity to gain a bargaining chip and to show off their 'might' at the same time? I destest it when people's lives are put at risk for political games, though unfortunately this happens all the time. I'd provide more commentary, but I think instead of jumping the gun, I'll wait a few more days to see how this situation plays out.

A little about myself

Since before I could remember, my father would lay down with my brothers and me, and he would read to us. Sometimes he would read to us stories from our children’s bibles and other time he would read to us fictional stories like the Chronicles of Narnia. I remember one time where my father finished reading us the last of the Narnia books, The Last Battle. At the end, C.S. Lewis writes in the mouth of Aslan (a Christ figure), that he is someone they have always known, but by another name. It was at this point that my father finished the story and then explained to us how in Narnia, Aslan was meant to be Christ and that C.S. Lewis used Aslan to show all the wonderful loving characteristics of Christ. This was but one way in which my father tried to help guide my brothers and me to God as we grew up.

While my father had a decent impact upon my idea of and relationship to God as a young child, he had an even greater impact once I began to develop my own personal relationship with God. As a young child, my faith was not mine, but rather the faith of those around me that I loved and trusted. It was something that I did because those that I loved did. I believe because they believed and taught me to believe. It was not until I was in junior high that I was truly taught that my relationship with God had to be my own, and not just a reflection of my influences. I need to make my own choice to want to follow God – no one could do it for me. Once I began to try to pursue God on a personal level, my conversations with my father began to deepen. Soon I was asking him about all sorts of things regarding God – on how to pray, what it meant to listen to God, and many other things. Though much of my teaching arose from my youth group at church, it was always my father who I asked the most personal questions and shared the more private things with. I remember one evening when I was in high school, I was leaving standing outside my house looking at the stars (something my father taught me to do) and I looked over at my father and said, “You know what Dad? Right now I’m perfectly content. I don’t really want more than what I have and I am good with what God has given me. Thanks to him, I am content and it’s the most wonderful feeling in the world.” It was at this point that I realized a sense of peace that God had place over my heart and it said a lot that the first person I wanted to share that peace with was my father.

Food Aid to Homeless Deemed Illegal in Certain Parts of Dallas

A USA Today article reported that a group called "The Lord's Table" that gives food to the homeless in Dallas, Texas is breaking the law. What is it doing wrong? It's serving food outside the city's nine "designated food sites" for the homeless. Now I understand that there are several different influences and sides to such a problem. It would be unwise to read such an article and jump to a position without taking time to understand an alternate perspective. On one hand we have the perspective of the group "The Lord's Table". Then we also have the perspective of the city, which passed the ordinance.

Many of us when reading this article would probably take the side of the Christian charity and quickly fill our minds with attempts at righteous indignation. And who's to say we wouldn't be justified in taking that approach? Indeed that was my first inclination when reading the article, thinking "How dare the city fine charities who just want to help and who are only giving out food?" It seems to fly in the face of not only what is taught by Christ, when he says "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Matthew 25:40 (NIV), but also common compassion. Indeed, Christ is talking about those who are considered the least in society - the hungry, the poor, the sick, the disabled. So who is considered the 'least' in our society? Without a shadow of a doubt it is the homeless. They are treated as scum in America.

So why do I caution from jumping to conclusions when it seems so right to detest Dallas' new law? Because to do so would lead to misunderstanding and possibly hatred for misunderstood intentions. I believe that a majority of people have good intentions, even if their actions are harmful to others. Thus I believe that the most Christian thing to do is, before jumping to conclusions and becoming 'holier than thou', one must at least try to understand the city's perspective. Thus I am offering a chance for alternative thinking.

So what could the city possibly be thinking? I do not speak for them, but having some experience with seeing how city governments treat homeless I believe I can offer some reasonable scenarios. First of all, homeless are often (consciously or not) considered a blight on a city. Also any big food give away, especially regularly scheduled ones, will attract homeless people in a city. This could possibly create more litter or trash around, and in the city's eyes lead to a possible blight on the area. The city also cites food safety as a concern - notably because the city does not monitor the preparation or give away of the food. One city spokeswoman said this could lead to the unwanted passing of diseases through improper food storage or preparation. Indeed, part of the city ordinance requires people to register with the city and attend food safety classes. Thus it is important to at least know where the other side (the city) might be coming from.

That being said, there are many inherant problems with this ordinance and the justification behind it. I would say that it would be a reasonable assumption to believe that most people in the US know how to somewhat safely prepare or store food - otherwise we would see a lot more people with food poisoning. Therefore I believe in this case civil disobedience is an ethical and morally right choice for those charities.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it right that the charities have sued the city of Dallas over this matter? Is the city justified in this ordinance?

Death in Iraq - Chance vs. Reality

What is the chance of someone dying in Iraq vs. the reality of a family's emotions?

My older brother ships out to Iraq in 2 weeks for his first six-month tour. This has suddenly added a new dimension to my life, but also a way to connect with the world and real life as a whole - it is the first time I am seeing someone I intimately know going off to war. What is most interesting is to see how this affects those around him - everything from our parents expressing deep sorrow to see their oldest son go to war, to our younger brother just starting to understand the reality of it, to my older brother's long-time girlfriend start to show a few signs of panic at the sudden reality of it. I'm not going to touch upon the arguments for or against the war, nor do I want to go into the politics of it. Rather, I am more interested in how this is affecting not only my family, but also the families of all those that are at war in Iraq.

What does it mean to see someone you love (a brother, a father, a sister, a husband or wife) go off to war knowing that there is a chance they will die? To often many of us in the United States have grown up with only a Hollywood version of war - one that is presented to us by the media. This in turn leads to many (myself included) having only a vague and surrealistic notion of war and it's true effects on people. I do not consider myself to be knowledgeable in this area - I've never been in the military or seen anyone killed, nor suffered any of the real hardships of man's constant violence. So when you see someone you love ship off to war, there is a fear that you will never see them again, but if you are like me there is the surrealistic part of it that makes you feel as if they are just going on some prolonged trip. How can this be? How can you look into the eyes of a loved one and feel the fear of losing them but also feel disconnected as if it is only a dream?

I believe part of this is due to what I will call the "chance of death" - that is, how likely is it for someone (in this case my brother) to die while at war in Iraq. Please do not think this is a cold, calculated, or inhumane action on my part - it is simply one way that my different mind is trying to come to terms that I might never be able to see my older brother again in my life. I am, as the title of this blog suggests, trying to present an alter thinking. Also please know that I do not claim to be a mathematician - all of these calculations are rough ones done by me.

As of March 19th, 2007, the Pentagon has reported 3,197 U.S. soldiers have died in the Iraq War. I searched but could not find any reliable current statistics on how many total troops have served in Iraq. According to about.com, almost 1,000,000 US soldiers had served in Iraq by January 2005. If you figure that as almost the halfway point in this (so far) four year war, then it would be safe to assume that the number is significantly higher than that. Since a lot of soldiers have gone on redeployment for two or three tours now, we can't just double the number of total troops that have served in Iraq. Nevertheless, there has been quite a few people who have either left or joined the military over the past four years. Given that our current military is approximately 2.5 million people (Active Duty/Reserve/National Guard), I believe it is a safe assumption to put the total number of U.S. troops who have served in Iraq at 1.5 million. Now let's look at those statistics - 3,197/1,500,000 troops have died while in Iraq. That's only .2%

This means that any given soldier in Iraq will have a .2% chance of dying. Now statistically that's a ridiculously low percentage and a much lower chance of death than several other occupations I could think of. So by the sheer chance of it, I shouldn't be worried about my brother dying in Iraq. However, we aren't purely rational beings - we live by our emotions as well as our rational thoughts. My reality, and the reality of many other families, is that I should be concerned for my brother and his life. And I do, but always with a part of me that feels guilty for looking at the odds and feeling that it's no big deal.