Two Huhs?

Huh Number One: In yesterday's San Diego Union Tribune, Babak Rahimi, assistant professor of Islamic Studies at UC-San Diego, wrote the following in an editorial titled Why Many Muslims Are Angry: "In sum, the demonizing caricature of Muhammad is more about the reduction of the Muslim world into a single sterotypical image of violence and rage than a satirical critique of Muslim's rejection of freedom of speech." So let's see... they react to the West's supposed caricature of them as full of violence and rage by, let's see, being violent and showing rage? What makes it almost humorous is Rahimi's throwaway sentence, after eight paragraphs of speaking of inflamatory cartoons and "explaining" why they act that way, "The above explanation is not, however to absolve those Muslims of responsiblity of the recent violence...", but then goes on to say that they are taking the "bait" and that the "true reality" is that the Muslim rage is a reaction to the "dehumanization" of Muslims than an essential feature of Islam. Geeze, let's see, if the initial, common reaction is rage and violence, from where does this come? And the dear professor seems to overlook the fact that repeated reports of Islamic clerics fanning the flames of the common people. Now where do the common people find their understanding of what is core to Islam? Hmmm...

Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.