Ok, here's another thing I've been thinking about. Have you noticed that whenever a media report comes out about the lastest, greatest fighting in Iraq, they always identify the religion of the opposing force and their minister? "US Marines today exchanged fire with Islamic militants led by Cleric Muqtada al'Sadr in Najaf..." How come they never say anything like, "Christian US Marines and one Jewish division prayed for by Marine Chaplain X exchanged fire with militants in Iraq today..." I think it's a little funny. I know I'm being somewhat extreme in saying "their minister", in so far as al'Sadr is not only the cleric but also the warlord who finances the fight. But still, saying such things as "Islamic militants" only propagates the negative stereotypes by which this essentially (and scripturally) peaceful religion is stigmatized by the West. How important is their religion to the cause for which they are fighting? Superficially - you might be able to make an argument for it. But fundamentally (I'm recapturing that word for it's intended meaning) these people aren't fighting and dying for God. They're fighting and dying because some folks they don't want there marched into their backyard with machine guns and said they weren't leaving. In the end, very few people actually die for religous beliefs. Most people who claim they are doing so are actually choosing to put themselves in fatal positions because death has become preferable to life; because a culture of death has been established and cultures of life cannot even be remembered. Statements by the media, and NPR is at fault for this too - such as the one I highlighted above as heard on today's Morning Edition - do not serve the purpose of building understanding, which in turn serves the higher purpose of bringing about peace. A homeless man in Fort Myers named Joe once told me, "The more we talk, the less we shoot each other." Name calling and religion branding doesn't constitute talk.

-R