Christianists kill 5 in Bagdad today.

Islamist. On the surface it seems like a fairly innocuous term. It refers to those who are fundamental Muslims. The media argues that the term is valid because the individuals that we are fighting in Iraq are persons or organizations using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology.

The religious breakdown of the world according to the CIA is follows:

Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%)

Muslims 20.12%

Hindus 13.34%

Buddhists 5.89%

Sikhs 0.39%

Jews 0.23%

other religions 12.61%

non-religious 12.03%

atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)

Most people would agree that the major three religions are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam even though the statistics given above clearly do not support this. Let us for the sake of argument say that it is a historic artifact.

The question I have is, why do we use the term Islamist to refer to the people that we are fighting in Iraq? If I use the argument above about using religious precepts to form a political ideology, then shouldn't we at least be fair and come up with some new terms for our troops and Israeli troops. Jewist or Christianists.

President Bush has stated the God (or is it god for Christ,I get confused over the God of the Old Testament that says 'you shall have no other gods before me' and the god of the New Testament that makes Jesus equal to God so we can ignore this rule) talks to him. He is guided by his faith in his god. Are we not as a country using religious percepts to form a political ideology?

Do I even need to argue that Israel is a religious based country? We never hear that the Jewist bombed Palestine.

The power of words to taint our viewpoint is powerful. We should think twice before we use words that, by default, foster a hatred of an entire people based on their religious beliefs. Especially when it is not true.

God Bless America

Northwoods Moment

Another fine hunting season has passed in our great Northwoods. The local paper has been stuffed with picture after picture of many a fine buck shot. Along with these fine bucks is the mug of some fellow hunter. Usually there is a vague description of where the unlucky buck and the lucky hunter met. Also some useful stats such as weight ( before guts and after) and spread of those revered antlers. What I think is missing is whether or not bait was used in the pursuit of said animal. It should be the first thing listed. Why does it matter if someone can shoot a deer from a pile of corn. Why should their pictures be put in the paper for all to see.?Does anyone really care to see pictures of a bunch of people who can shoot fish in a barrel? Lets see pictures of all of the lovely does and fauns shot through skillful hunting and patience. I want to hear the stories of kids who put in day after day sitting on a runway waiting for one to come by.The time you put in hunting is the treasure. Why sell yourself short by baiting?