ISIS - Shaming Middle Easterns Around the World

“You are not safe even in your bedrooms”

This was stated by the Islamic State spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, as a warning to the West. ISIS attempted to rally fellow Muslims to attack and kill European and American citizens, stating, “Do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons and troops of the tyrants. Strike their police, security and intelligence members. “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that joined a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” he said.

“You will pay the price as you are afraid of traveling to any land,” he said addressing the West. “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses.”

Disregarding these threats, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, continued to work to expand international support for Washington’s action against ISIS by holding a General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mohammad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, said that Iran was ready to work with the US and its allies in their efforts to bring down the Islamic State jihadists. By Iran agreeing to work with us, I believe Middle-Easterns, although mostly Muslim, are making a clear statement that they DO NOT support and are in no way affiliated with such extremists as the ISIS. On the other had, it is very disheartening that Iran is asking for "payback" for their cooperation. Yes, they are putting their country in a dangerous position my helping the US but isn't assisting the effort to save innocent lives enough award as is? And if not that, what about the fact that you're helping taking down an extremist group that has killed millions of innocent Middle-Easterns, for their "holy purpose."

The position of Middle-Easterns is obvious once one has researched the turmoil in their countries, but unfortunately remains unknown the majority of society. All of my Muslim friends are utterly embarrassed that people claiming their religion are acting in such a manner (which I would like to state more specifically but words such as violent, insane, radical etc. all seem like gross understatements.) We must remember that ISIS is a group of extremists and we cannot judge practicing Muslims for their behavior. My father's best friend, and a majority of my sisters' college friends are Muslim, although we do not agree with their ideology, we can all verify that they in no way reflect the actions or beliefs of these terrorists. 

Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam, stated that ISIS must be taken on as “forces of darkness” who are destroying the standing of the entire Islamic faith. This clearly states Saudi's political and religious stance against the extremists and their personal shame that they have not done more to protect their nation against them.

Currently, Iraq officials said at least 40 soldiers have been killed in recent suicide bombings from Islamic State militants and another 68 have been captured. This development caused the withdrawal of 700 troops following the attack.

Based off The Times article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11114677/Islamic-State-You-are-not-even-safe-in-your-bedrooms.html

Gay Marriage, are we not a land of freedom?

Yes, we are a country founded off of the desire for freedom, and yes, we stand for the principle that all men should be treated to equally. So shouldn't that mean that if a straight man can marry a women then why can't a gay man have the same right? Doesn't this seem hypocritical? Quite frankly it does. But prior to jumping to a conclusion on this question, let's take a look back. As I said before we are a country that was birthed for the purpose of freedom and equality, but what else was or country founded off of? Or to put properly, who? God, Christianity, the gospel!
Now before you write me off as another Christian ranter who hats gays, let me explain my point. Yes, I do believe that our country should not permit gay marriage. Yes, all men should be treated equally but also, as it says in the Bible, marriage is between a man and a women!
I believe the best solution for this issue would be for the states to make new laws, ones which allow gay couples to receive similar benefits to those received in a marriage, and of course give those laws a different name, leaving marriage to be the sacred bond between a man and a women, as it is in the Bible.
Yes, this may just be a pacifier to a much bigger issue growing in our country but sometimes a pacifier is just what you need when your country in screaming out for something it should not have.

Vanderbilt, New Requirement for Student Organizations

Leadership is defined in many different ways. One of the best definitions in my opinion is this: “Leadership is the art  of influencing and directing people in such a way that will win their obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in achieving common objectives.” — U. S. Air Force. The key work here is "common"; if a leader is influencing his or her followers toward an action, purpose or belief that is not their own or the intending direction, then are they really a good leader? That's similar to asking if a math teacher is a good teacher if they are causing their students to learn history, obviously not. So when I heard about Vanderbilt University making every campus group sign a pledge that they would not discriminate in their membership or leadership on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. in order to register as a student organization I was simply bewildered!
This new Vanderbilt rule was created after students claimed that a Christian organization on campus, Graduate Christian Fellowship (GCF), was discriminating against non-Christian members. This supposed discrimination was do to the organization's requirement that student leaders affirm their doctrinal and purpose statement. To state simply, they were requiring those who wanted to lead the Christian organization to BE Christian. This sounds more like common sense to me, they wanted leaders who shared COMMON objectives with their members. But Vanderbilt disagreed and put GCF on probation and told them that they had to drop the requirement or would lose their status as a registered student organization.
As it turns out, this wasn't the first time Vanderbilt had this issue on campus. During the previous school year, a Christian fraternity had expelled several students for violating their behavior policy. One student said he was ousted because he is gay. Vanderbilt responded by forbidding any belief standards for those wanting to join or lead any campus group.
Now, as a leader of several activities at my high school, I am one of the first to say that no one should ever feel left our or discriminated against for their beliefs, ethnicity or sexuality. I do agree with Vanderbilt in the aspect that anyone who wants to join a club or organization should be able to do so, but I disagree that just anyone should be able to lead those clubs or organizations. For example, at my private Christian high school, we permit anyone to become a student at the school because we believe it is out job and mission to share the gospel with everyone possible. But to run for a position of leadership on our student council, we must have our pastors sign a paper that verifies that we go to church weekly and therefore believe in the Christian doctrine. We do this because we know that no matter how "good" a leader is, they will not be successful unless they actually believe in the principles and purpose of the people whom they are leading.
Even in a non-religious aspect, for example, my oldest sister's sorority, Empowered Arab Sisterhood, which is an organization fighting for their rights as suppressed Arab women from the Middle East, permit all girls who want to join be welcomed, but those who want to take up a position of leadership must actually be Arab. Does this mean that the sorority is discriminating against all other ethnicities? No, they simply want their leaders to be passionate for their cause! Just like how GCF at Vanderbilt wants their leaders to be passionate for Christ! How could they possibly lead their members if they're not?
To be honest, this new requirement at Vanderbilt still confuses me because this idea of leadership seems like common sense! But is apparently not. Now I just pray these new requirements don't go any further, for the sake of organizations across the country.