In less than 9 hours America will be observing the 7th anniversary of 9/11. The attacks that day were the worst in American history, and many of us can still recall where we were as the planes hit the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

Politicians have used 9/11 as a weapon and shield since that day. Some have used it to create political influence. Others have used it to increase the power of aspects of the Government. And still others have used it to express their own fears and dislike of laws and Government. All are fair to an extent, and virtually all are wrong to use this despicable act for their self-interest.

Tomorrow, both Presidential candidates will inevitably use the day to promote some aspect of their Presidential campaigns.

On September 11, 2001 I was at my brokerage office in midtown Manhattan. I saw live television as the 2nd plane struck, and watched the Towers fall. I was among the millions that feared for their lives, and those of loved ones and friends on that day. I walked among the millions that were stunned and dazed on the streets of Manhattan. I had several colleagues and friends that were hurt, killed, or otherwise immediately impacted by the Towers that day.

In the wake of this horrific act of fanatical religious rage, I was sure that New York City would be struck again by the mindless uncaring evil that terrorism is within days if not months. Considering that London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, and most any other major city across the world has to deal with this kind of insanity on a repeated basis such a thought was not (and is not) unreasonable.

To date we have not seen another attack on U.S. soil. We have seen several individuals enter the nation from the Canadian border with the intent to harm innocent civilians. They all have been intercepted without their plans being enacted. None have ever been identified coming from the Mexican border.

Today we hear some act as if America can never again be touched. They believe that America need not protect itself. They believe that vigilance is unwarranted, and pro-active steps for protection useless or provocative. I find such thoughts naïve and potentially deadly.

Today we also hear some that seek to restrict ever more freedoms under an umbrella of protection from a never ending war on fanatical ideas. They would strike at any foreign thought or belief. They would dominate for fear of any weakness becoming a new point of attack. They would give up individuality for the comfort of safety.

Both of these extremes of thought are wrong. They are extreme views that fail to see the reality of the world, which lies far closer to the center than where they stand.

The reality is that at some point America will be struck again. No nation is immune or impenetrable. Fanatics have no time limits, nor can they be negotiated or bribed from their views. Their ideals cannot be killed, or corrupted, or beaten by force. The best any nation can do is to hold back the beast for a time and minimize its effectiveness.

Every year, every day that America goes without an attack on our population is only one day. And one day, hopefully far far in the future, we will have to start the clock over and count up again. I don‘t say this to be a sensationalist, or to be a fear monger. Its reality, and straightforward. And I pray that when that day comes it is minimized to the least extent possible.

To those that think America can just hide in our nation and the world will leave us alone I say wake up. For those that think that mere force will eliminate any potential threat I say calm down and think. America is always a target of fanatics because we are free, rich, and powerful all at once. And you cannot kill an idea (especially when that idea is a religion – no matter how twisted that idea is made to be).

I suppose I don’t have a direct point of this post. I’m not trying to make a conclusion, or place blame. Neither benefits the nation. Rather I am reflecting on a moment that struck me to my core. A day that will never leave me in a way that many in the nation never will feel, I hope.

Over the next hour, and through the next day I want my readers to reflect on a few thoughts. We have a great nation, flaws and all. We can believe in whatever God we wish, or none at all if we chose. We can voice our thoughts even if others disagree. We can travel as we chose, even if it costs more or takes longer than we like. We can live where we please, work as we are capable, and earn most of what we are worth.

Millions serve our nation everyday. They protect us, and defend us from laws, individuals and nations that can cause us harm. The service is born of a desire for the nation to always improve and become greater for our children than what we have lived. At times that service is flawed due to imperfect decisions or temporary political desire; flawed in how the execution is made not in the service provided. And we should honor that service.

9/11 is a remembrance that we all serve our nation in our own way. That our nation is great, filled with great people. That when we act the sum of our actions tend to be the right one. And that every American life is as important as our own.

Perhaps I’m rambling, but sometimes that’s just what we need. No point, no decisive goal to achieve. Just thoughts based on an act of evil, 7 years ago.

Labels: 9/11, american history, New York City, religious tolerance, terrorist attack, Twin Towers

I want to share a response to a comment that I recieved at Black Entertainment USA under the post of Coming to a movie theater soon: Monopoly - 2.20.2008.3 and my response. I feel both are more appropriate on this more political blog.

Every part of the following is verbatim and can be seen at the above link. I believe that the commentor meant to respond to one of my posts referring to the racial and false religious attacks against Senator Obama. [By the way, I do enjoy comments and generally don't care if the responder is anonymous or not. But I do not enjoy small minded racial, religious, or gender based prejudice and intolerance.]

"Anonymous said...
He is of muslim descent ding-a-ling. The name has everything to do with our future. Your not gonna have the women in the United States wearing burka's. How the hell has he helped the taxes in Illinois, What has he done for this state. We are one of the highest taxed States in the country. I cant stand hooples...the youth of the country voting for him are stupid."

M. Vass said...

Anonymous,

I can see why you didn’t place your name to this post. First, I find it quite interesting in your choice of term to try to denigrate and minimize my posts with. Generally I find the more eloquent wordings better, but yours was a cute blast from the past.

Beyond this, I feel the need to emphasize that you obviously placed the comment on the wrong blog. Considering that you posted this to my entertainment blog, under a post about Monopoly becoming a potential movie in the near future, I think you were a bit confused at the time. Or you were fearful of making the comment under a more appropriate post such as Democratic Presidential candidate’s tactics and behavior which is found at my political blog – VASS.

But, lets deal with the comment as it pertains to Senator Obama and his growing success at becoming the Democratic Presidential nominee.

As I stated in the post I referenced above, The Clinton campaign has used the background of Senator Obama’s parents (particularly his father’s religion) and his given name as a reason not to vote for him. You seem to agree. I find that ignorant.

Senator Obama is of African and American descent. To be more exacting he is of Negroid and Caucassian decent. The religious background of his parents is not a birthright nor a genetic imperitive passed on to him at conception.

Further, his name is not a determination of anything in his life. Were it true as you suppose, Billy Bob Thornton would never be an actor or person of note, but instead a poor farmer of dubious parentage and unlikely to be able to sign his name. Such is the stigma attached unfairly to such a name, and with no reasoning behind it. Another example might be John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It could be said that such a name could imply that this great President of our nation was gay and a drunk. Of course only the most insipid of minds would come to such a conclusion, but they might say this because his middle name comes from his mother and the last is related to his Irish lineage. Niether are true to my knowledge, nor affected his ability.

Or perhaps John Wayne, whose real name is Marion Robert Morrison, was gay? Or Albert Einstein was a Nazi because his name and parentage is German? I can go on throughout history, but the point is a name does not make a man. A man (or woman for that matter) makes the name renown by virtue of their actions.

But in your fear adled mind a mere name is enough to make you worry that women in America could be forced to wear burkha’s or that laws based on our constitution would be suplanted by those of a strick religious sect, which is not the most populous sect followed by a majority of Americans. I’m sure if you were told that the sky was falling or that certain actions with your hand would make you go blind you believed that too. I am also lead to believe that your knowledge of history is defined by your belief that those just like you were always right and beneficial in every act ever done. You are a fear monger, and appear ignorant of facts both present and past.

As for the taxation in Illinois, I cannot answer that. I am not a native nor resident of that state. Though I am sure that the taxes in that state are not the sole responsibility of this one elected official. Perhaps he has not done enough for your state, but sharing in that responsibility would be the Governor, another Senator, your Congressional representiatives, and the Federal Government most recently headed by President George Bush and his administration. But that is a legitiamte reason, if correct, to not vote for Senator Obama. That is your Constitutional Right. As is the Freedom of Religious Expression that this nation was founded under.

By the way, what is a hoople? I find that the urban dictionary has multiuple unofficial meanings. Do you mean you don’t like birds that cannot fly straight? Or the hardening of nipples? Or prehaps you are more against a preson who drinks to excess (normally refered to as a drunk or alcoholic). Possibly you mean to say that you dislike people similar to a character in the book Mott the Hoople that was lazy. Of course none of these meanings seem to apply to Senator Obama, my readers – I believe, with the exception of possibly the writter of the comment this is responding to, or myself.

You claim that the youth of this nation are stupid. I doubt that. While many may be misguided and/or are making decisions without understanding the full ramifications of the actions that is neither a new thing nor stupid. I in fact believe that the youth of today are educated, and far more knowledgable of current technology than many adults. Many are far more understanding of religious, racial and gender differences than their parents have ever been. Far more than what you appear to be with your limited scope of understanding and inability to use technology accurately.

So in fact I think you may be projecting your own fear and lack of willingness to become educated onto the youth of America. That seems far more apparent and resonable.

With any luck, and the attention of American citizens that actually care about the best interest of America, we will never have a President – nor any elected official at any governmental level – that reflects the small minded, zenophobic, religiously intolerant, illogical, uneducated, probably racist and gender biased mindset that I believe you have displayed.

That is what I believe. And I am happy to present my name not only throught my blogs, websites, and businesses but also on this post.

Michael Vass

Labels: Black Entertainment USA, Freedom of religion, Michael Vass, political bias, President George Bush, President John F. Kennedy, racial controversy, religious tolerance, Senator Barack Obama

A simple question I’ve asked before, does religion affect your choice of President of the United States?

As others have noted

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Yet the question of religion has long been connected to elected office, and in recent years directly so. As religious fanaticism has caused some to become terrorists, the question of religion in American politics takes a stronger position. I for one do not find this to be a good position.

In a recent Democratic debate (there have been 27 so far if you lost count) George Stephanopoulos asked:

“My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

Can you imagine this question being asked of the oft quoted Theodore Roosevelt? Or perhaps Lincoln? How about if President Clinton had been asked if prayer would heal all the people without healthcare, or if President Carter were asked if prayer would get the hostages back from Iran?

Religion is a powerful thing, for an individual. Faith is something that cannot be quantified nor should it be worn like a merit badge. It is a facet of a person that is intrinsic like leadership. To pander to any group on this basis cheapens the people pandered to and the faith they have, in my opinion. Perhaps that is one reason that the Constitution precludes its use in gaining public office.

If we cannot separate religion for the debates of Presidential candidates, how do we believe the separation of Church and State will be maintained? Thus what other tenants of the Constitution are also subject to being bent or broken? How can we be idle as we see the slippery slope taking us to a place the Founding Fathers of this nation warned us never to tread?

Labels: American Constitution, political debate, President Carter, President Clinton, President Lincoln, presidential candidate, religious tolerance, Theodore Roosevelt

Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them.
Edward R. Murrow

Muslims pray before getting on a plane and the passengers get them removed. A man at Pace University, angry that a movie was not going to be shown because of Muslim requests, takes a Koran from a common area and flushes it down a toilet, twice. A University in the Mid-west decides to install 2 foot basins to allow Muslim students the ability to wash their feet, using taxpayer funds to do so.

You may have heard of these stories. Generally you have only heard a piece of the story, possibly presented from one side or another. I will not pretend to be able to explain both sides of the arguments involved with these issues, nor will I claim one view is better than another. I will state that they are all related in that they are part of the growing religious divisions found in America today.

It doesn’t matter whether you think that a person praying, in a manner and language unlike the usual televised religious ceremonies constantly on airwaves for the past 4 decades at least, is a concern. Nor does it matter that the foot basins could be paid for by others than the state government. What is important to me is that it brings to light the fear of a religion that is not the most populous in America today. That is a dangerous situation, and will be deadly if not addressed.

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than any other factor in human history. Not food, or shelter, or even greed. The existence or not of an omnipotent being/entity that has this or that name inflames more people than there are raindrops in the sky during a thunderstorm. The Romans vs. Christians, Egypt vs. the Hebrews in Ancient times, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades and that’s just the European – Mediterranean area. Throughout time this has gone on and on. And today it is even worse.

Palestinians vs. Israel, Al Quida, Iran vs. Iraq (1980’s), Sunni vs. Shiite, the Holocaust, David Koresh vs. the U.S. Government, Jim Jones and so on. There is no end. I truly doubt that there ever will be an end to it. But how is that connected to the earlier statements?

The more fear is used to explain or punish or repress any group of people the less free all the people are. Listen to the anger that is expressed when news reporters discuss many cases that involve Muslims. Hear those that had (and have) fears of Senator Obama based on his name alone. Remember the outrage that resulted from Representative Ellison swearing into Congress with the Koran. See the distrust placed on Mr. Mitt Romney as a Mormon. None of that is healthy.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Mitt Romney, Muslim religion, religious tolerance, Rep. Virgil Goode

The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental tenants of our nation. No one questions that. Yet in reference to the Presidential candidates there is no question that religion is linked to each of them. It may be most notable in the questions asked of Mitt Romney, but it exists for each candidate to varying degrees. So I have to ask why?

What is it that makes a candidate better or worse? Is the particular deity they may or may not pray to make that much of a difference? I have read and understood most religions on the face of the earth today. I am no expert, but I do understand the basics and in that understanding comes a conclusion. Every major religion on the earth today espouses love, understanding, and penalizes greed, murder, and hate. Every religion believes in the sanctity of life. Beyond that the issues really become what name you call the deity and how you pray. Those 2 things have caused more wars and bloodshed than any other reason in the history of Man.

Does it really make a difference if the President of the United States is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? In my view the President must act in the benefit of the nation, even when that might conflict with their religious views. I am unaware of a President that has not acted in the best interest of the nation due to their religion. So I see no precedence for such concern.

Perhaps I am more concerned than I should be, but if religion becomes a central part of the Presidency then I am sure battles between all the religions within this nation is not far behind. It is like dominoes, once they start to fall the whole line falls.

But this is what I wonder. Am I seeing this correctly? Am I missing something?

Labels: presidential candidate, religious tolerance, United States

Due to the length and importance of this reply, I have decided to make it a post. It’s long and will be in more than one part. This is a response to the comment made by Oldatlantic, whom I thank for reading the blog and pursuing my thoughts.


First I want to thank you for your comment and for being a reader of Vass.

To reply to your comment, it is often stated that the Koran allows for the active fight against those that do not convert to Islam. What is less stated is that the Koran also “gives "People of the Book" special status, allowing those who live in Muslim lands (called dhimmi—protected people) to practice their own religions and to own property.” Further, “This agreement has in the past led to Islamic countries practicing religious toleration for Christians and Jews, although they were never accorded the full status enjoyed by Muslims.”

I will not defend nor question how any one group may or may not interpret the Koran and its statements on conversion of non-Muslims, or tolerance of People of the Book – those being Jews and Christians. I will state that the Koran does mention both things.

But I must also say that this is little different than what Christianity has done over the centuries. Actually over millennium. Whether that forced conversion was in the form of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, missionaries (to convert the “savages”), or other similar actions. There is no doubt that Christianity became the most populous religion through a great deal of forced conversion and bloodshed, and in that there should be no sticks or stones thrown at the Muslim faith. To do so would be hypocritical.

And let me clarify the statement I made that you quoted. The type of thinking I am referring to is racism. The prior statements I made before you quoted me were “The actual statement from Rep. Goode seems to be that Black or Arab or non-White Muslims are a bad thing for America. If that is correct it is blatant racism.” The type of thinking I was referring to, the type of slavery and genocide, are what happened in America and in Europe. Slavery in America was long justified by some by the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church made no moves to prevent the slavery in America, to my knowledge, ever until it was removed and then condemned its existence. In America the systematic murder (genocide) of the Native American Indians was justified by many on the basis of religion, as was their often forced conversion. In Europe it took a long time before any comments were made about the actions of the Nazi’s against the Jews.

To be continued... Part 2 of reply on Rep. Virgil Goode's letter - 12.24.2006.2

Labels: Quran, religious tolerance, Rep. Goode, Rep. Keith Ellison, Roman Catholic Church