Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Christmas Message Is A Provocation

The British TV Station, Channel 4, aired an “alternative” Christmas message this year, delivered by controversial international figure and material supporter of terrorism, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The man is objectively a very anti-western leader who has been extremely provocative toward the United States and Israel, going as far as supporting terrorists who target Israeli citizens, and making the ridiculous suggestion that there are no homosexuals in Iran. That anybody in the free world should want to listen to the rantings of a man who enables a patriarchal state that executes people for “moral” sins is beyond me. But to have this person express his views on the holiest day in the Christian calender tells me, simply, that he wants to mock us.

Excerpts of the full text found here:

“On this difficult and challenging journey of man from dust to the divine, He did not leave humanity to its own devices. He chose from those He created the most excellent as His Prophets to guide humanity.

“All Prophets called for the worship of God, for love and brotherhood, for the establishment of justice and for love in human society. Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the standard-bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings, of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.

“All the problems that have bedevilled humanity throughout the ages came about because humanity followed an evil path and disregarded the message of the Prophets.

[...]

“We believe Jesus Christ will return, together with one of the children of the revered Messenger of Islam and will lead the world to love, brotherhood and justice.

Now, I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, nor am I even convinced he existed as a historical figure. But the point is that Christians do believe in both, and for the Iranian President to suggest otherwise is an affront to the convictions of that religion. Don’t agree?

Well, let’s look at it this way. What has happened in the past when non-Muslims attempted to suggest that the Prophet Muhammad was anything other than the chosen Prophet of Allah to spread the word of Islam? What has happened when non-Muslims have at any time tried to take introspective looks into the religion and made any disputes about the accuracy in the Qu’ran? The answer is that the Muslims have responded with swift and decisive rage. They do like us suggesting things that they consider sacrosanct, and they believe the Qu’ran is not just a Bible that tells of the creation of the Earth as transcribed by mortals. They believe it to be the literal word of God Himself.

So when the Iran President suggests that Jesus was not the Lamb of God, the Son in the Holy Trinity, but a mere Prophet unto the Islamic religion, it is deplorably insensitive to the Holy Day of the religion of Christianity. Channel 4 did not deliver an “alternative” Christmas message, but allowed a radical world leader to openly mock the world’s most powerful religion in a nation that once stood up for their cultures and traditions. Only the Britons must know how lowly their culture has sunk into the quagmire that is “inclusivity”. For you see, just as the Muslims don’t need anyone telling them about what they can and can not believe in, Christians have no interest whatsoever in a “16th alternative message” to tell them about a day they have held as sacred for over two thousand years.

Is It Disability Or Irresponsible Life Choices?

Firstly, welcome to the new Unambiguously Ambidextrous home. I’ve been looking to try a new format for a while, and given the recent bugs in Blogger, I thought I’d give it a shot. After all, it seems many former Blogger writers have migrated over, and I would be lying if I said I didn’t feel the pull of human conformity. So please, update your bookmarks, or if you have subscribed to my Feedburner RSS there should be a seamless change in feeds.

---

Recent articles in the media have led me to wonder about personal responsibility and the concept of what a “disability” is. In my mind it is a person who, through probably no fault of their own, have been left vulnerable in some way to a specific set of circumstances that many of us “normal” citizens find routine. So, for instance, a person who has lost a leg in an accident is disabled because they are unable to move about in society as freely as the rest of us with two. This is, of course, a generalization, since many disabled people with highly motivated interests can be as active or more active than the rest of us.

But where I wonder if modern attitudes have blurred the lines between personal responsibility and disability, is in the following articles: One about a police officer who became a drug addict, and the other about airlines which will treat obese passengers under disabled policies.

An Ottawa police officer who stole crack cocaine is fighting to get his job back – and his lawyer says the case raises an important issue around the responsibility of police to accommodate officers who suffer from the “disability of drug addiction.”

Lawyer Kenneth Jull, who is representing former constable Kevin Hall, has formally filed notice of motion for leave to appeal a recent court ruling that struck down the officer’s attempt to be reinstated.

The notice says that Hall’s case calls for “important judicial interpretation” regarding the duty of a police force to accommodate officers who suffer from the “disability of drug addiction.“

His lawyer speaks about the importance of not allowing the “punishment paradigm to transcend the rehabilitative paradigm.” And I suppose there is a certain amount of validity in that thought, as the evolution of our penal system has changed into one that attempts to rehabilitate rather than punish. And yet, I am left with the thought that we must not allow our judgment to be clouded by the concept that all people are somehow “disabled” in choices they make that become self-detrimental. After all, the officer very immorally confiscated and furthermore prosecuted users of crack cocaine whilst using the substance himself. He betrayed the public trust he was endowed with the responsibility to protect, his fellow police officers whom he tainted by his conviction, and abused the conscience of a system that gives more leniency to police officers. After all, Mr.Hall has been suspended with pay since 2005.

Amid such musings, the other story involving airlines that are trying to accommodate the obese:

Canada’s two largest airlines are scrambling to craft new policies defining obesity as they prepare to offer disabled passengers two seats for the price of one.

Both WestJet Airlines Ltd. and Air Canada are considering asking disabled travellers, including the morbidly obese, to provide doctors’ notes confirming their conditions instead of giving them extra seats based on the passengers’ own assessments.

[...]

McKay-Panos, a human rights lawyer, said it would be discriminatory and judgmental to screen out fat people who can’t medically explain their condition if the same rules are not applied to people with other disabilities.

I’ll admit that I feel a sympathy toward those with medical morbid obesity. I believe that science has shown that there are those who are genetically predisposed to obesity, and it certainly is a medical condition worthy of the term “disability”. At the same time, one is left with the question of whether it is something that becomes a personal lifestyle choice. Most people who have a disability strive to overcome it. But there are people who seem to have accepted obesity as being a part of their inevitable lifestyle. Should society contrive to accommodate the apathetic? From empathy of medical drug addiction and genetic obesity, we need to realize that with personal choice comes personal responsibility. Those who make choices of detriment to their beings need to realize there are ramifications that cannot be swept under the rug of compassion.

Related

Sandy: Is addiction a disability? [Link]

Jordan: The Obese: Two-for-one seats, and a slice of cake on the side [Link]