Interesting… The European Court of Human Rights has declared that it is a violation of human right for a government to require religious identification on government ID cards. Religion (or at least an indication of Muslim/Non-Muslim) is obligatory on Saudi forms, from iqamas to visa applications. Of course, Saudi Arabia is not part of Europe and this ruling does not affect it, but the ruling does suggest how the issue is being seen.
February:03:2010 - 10:11 | Comments & Trackbacks (33) | Permalink
33 Responses to “European HR: ‘No Religious ID
on State-Issued ID Cards’”
on State-Issued ID Cards’”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:03:2010 - 12:21
Scary….I thought Europe prided itself on secularism; espeically France. It is ok. for the Gulf states to do it because they are not secular. The Europeans though, why?
O.k. There can be one that I can think of on the top of my mind. As a part Dane, I know the Lutheran Church is state sponsored, and part of taxes (which is high) there funds the Lutheran Church. As far as the religiousity there—almost zero. It is not a religious country at all. I am a little baffled here. Where do we draw the line?
February:03:2010 - 12:56
Well, the court said that the asking of religious identification was a human rights violation in itself, so I don’t really see a problem with secularity.
February:03:2010 - 17:47
Well, in any state there has to exist a balance between secularism and non-secularism, now ofc KSA is a non-secular state, therefore it is well within the right to ID religious belief, although it is perhaps a rights violation from a western point of view, it is not necessarily a negative thing.
One must understand that there will always exist more than one point of view, i usually tend to say from a ”western” point of view, so when thinking about such an issue, its useful to consider that what majority in the country itself would consider this a bad thing, including the opinion of foreigners as they are the people targeted here.
But in addition, The Saudi policy was always influenced by the role of ”legitimization” from the religious institution, this surely contributed to such regulations being implemented in KSA.
otherwise im really not concerned with such an issue, as noone in the country seems to have strong negative views against it, and it rather is helpful in terms of culture, for example a Saudi householder would be happy to know if the driver he is hiring is a muslim or not, as that makes a huge difference whether the driver gets the job or not, Muslim workers always have the upper hand with employment as they are considered of more decent culture, the sad thing is, if they didnt have this religious ID on their Visa, the employer would ask them anyway, so its a trade-off from official ID and unofficial discrimination
.
Hope this wasnt too long.
February:03:2010 - 18:11
Does this apply to every country, or just to Turkey (it’s a Turk who launched this case)? My understanding is that decisions produced by the European Court of Human Rights (to which Turkey has acceded) apply to the country in question. To be fair, I’m basing all of this understanding on the last three paragraphs of this BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8493888.stm
February:03:2010 - 20:06
The only reason the iqama and visa have the muslim/non-muslim section is purely because of the restricted access to Makkah and Madinah. It’s really very simple and has nothing to do with the day to day operations or lives of the more than 6m foreigners that live in Saudi Arabia.
Don’t read too much into it folks.
February:03:2010 - 22:37
Talal, do you honestly believe the statment you made above?
No one even checks when you drive into those places! Also do you believe that everyone that is Saudi is a Muslim? What would happen if a non-Muslim entered those places?
February:03:2010 - 23:43
The court speaks for/to all of Europe, so yes, no European country may ask for religion on official ID forms. I suppose in those countries were there are official religions, then some aspects of life may require that one identify one’s religion–in the UK, for instance, a member of the royal family can’t marry a Catholic if s/he’s in line for the throne. But an ID card can (no longer) state the religion of the person involved.
February:03:2010 - 23:45
I think that theoretically, you’re right. In practice, though, I think we see a lot of variation. Some do discriminate against non-Muslims. And checking IDs for entry to the holy cities doesn’t seem to be uniform, either. When I was assigned in Riyadh (2001-03), there was a bit of a flap when the Italian ambassador was discovered in Mecca. He claimed that he had been a Muslim for years, but that’s not what his iqama said…
February:04:2010 - 05:09
I thought maybe the Italian ambassador would melt away in God’s fury…well I mean at least his iquama would.
Hiltler had a flavor for identification
http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/People/Victims.htm
People are ever so curious to know another person’s religion, so they can set up their preconceived notions. In their minds, perhaps, it is a sweet thought to send off opposites to gas chambers.
I got a glimpse of the despair of which comes with being identified. The way my friend and I were abruptly spoken to yesterday by a man in a short thobe… I am sure if he had the power to send us off to some camp and incinerate us he would. The hate, the brewing disgust, the seething madness of wanting to cleanse us germs was ever so present in his harsh voice. I asked myself, “Can that really be the presence of God or a representation of the presence of God. So misguided he is yet so convinced he is on the right path.” After we complied with is silly demand, he felt victorious, but not as victorious as if could have seen us incinerated. As he began walking off, I said the following words to him with a voice of concern and sincerity, “May God keep you in goodness and May God put you in Paradise.” He stopped for a moment in his tracks as if a dagger had been thrown through his heart and he shook his head from left to right as if he was saying to himself, “Is that what she just said?” and then he murmured in a low and fear striken voice “Inshallah” as if he were second guessing himself and his style at that precise moment in time. He sped off to his own shame.
The first thing that came to my mind was that if any of the prophets were still around WOULD they have acted and spoken in the manner this man chose. I realize there aren’t any prophets I just wish people would stop thinking they are authorized by God himself. This man had this presence about him as if he were God himself and this air of confidence that to question him or disobey him it would be disobeying God himself. Disallusioned and misguided and F-in people think they are carrying out God’s will. If God’s will was to eradicate such scum and germs from the earth (like myself), why would he have not just made everyone perfect. Oh to be an angel!
February:04:2010 - 05:18
#Swedish
‘. As far as the religiousity there—almost zero. It is not a religious country at all’
Your problem is that you identify religiosity with a strict muslim way of doing it.
Our traditions are build on a protestant interpretation of religion, it means that you don’t brag with your belief. We pay to the church because we care of our traditions. Of course many muslims don’t respect our culture and traditions, but they don’t mind enjoying the results.
February:04:2010 - 05:26
F-stating one’s religion
And
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” –
– Mark Twain
NielsC I am tired of hearing the excuse that many Muslims use that the Arabian Penisula is somehow different…stop beating the drum or another drum in going to get beat.
February:04:2010 - 05:38
Identification of religion on IDs should not be demanded whether in Europe or in Saudi Arabia.
There is no point in saying Saudi Arabia is different and this is “Western” point of view. It is not – even in many non-Western countries in Asia IDs don’t have the religion of the people specified.
And there is no point in saying religion is identified in Saudi Arabia “only for the sake of checking entry into Makka and Madina.” This statement presumes that restricting entry to these two places is the right thing to do.
In fact this kind of restriction of people’s movement based on their religion is not warranted, whether in West or in the East.
In case of Saudi Arabia, identification of religion is also a way of identifying whether one follows the “true religion” or not and all the discriminations begin from there. It’s high time Saudi Arabia begins to acknowledge all religions in the world as “true religions.”
February:04:2010 - 07:34
Daisy the closest thing you will get from Saudi Arabia is to acknowledge that they are real religions not true.
People are discriminated against based on religion and to presume that because someone has or even professes a certain religion that they should be put in positions of trust is very shallow thinking!
I see many pea sized brain ppl around me daily with this very mentality. I have seen many holy rollers with the BIG SLAM ISLAM and they are nothing more than FRAUDS! Makes me want to Vomit!
February:04:2010 - 09:54
Sparky,
Yes, I honesty believe in the statement I made and stand by it wholeheartedly.
And no, I don’t believe all those that hold Saudi citizenship are muslim. And just stay one step ahead of where I think this argument is headed, I don’t think it is any of my concern that some non-muslim Saudis get access to Makkah and Madina purely because they are Saudi and assumed to be muslim by the authorities. Unless they have stated otherwise, they are assumed to be muslim and that’s that.
As for foreigners, it’s the same as far as religion is concerned. They have a choice when they state their religion on their visa application. They could easily state that they are muslim and get access to the both Makkah and Madina. I don’t think the issuing embassies have the man power nor the will to go looking into every applicants religious background.
It’s not a fool proof system but Saudi Arabia has a responsibility towards muslims from all over the globe to uphold the traditions of Islam especially when dealing with the most sacred of places. And by adding the religion section in visas and iqamas, it can claim that it is doing it’s best to uphold those traditions.
Now the fact that not everyone is checked actually helps my argument in that the “top management” in Saudi doesn’t really choose to prosecute or discriminate against non-muslims. They just have to do what they have to do.
February:04:2010 - 10:07
Daisy,
In response to this section:
“And there is no point in saying religion is identified in Saudi Arabia “only for the sake of checking entry into Makka and Madina.” This statement presumes that restricting entry to these two places is the right thing to do.”
As far as the majority of muslims are concerned, it is the right thing to do. It is a very clear tradition (hadeeth) of the Prophet PBUH in which he states that access to those two Holy cities be restricted to muslims and muslims alone. Now whether you agree with that or don’t is irrelevant because it’s a muslim law being enforced in a muslim country run by a muslim government regarding to muslim cities that are considered to be holy by muslims.
Now, had the restriction to access been to let’s say, for argument’s sake, been to a city such as Al-Quds (Jerusalem), where 3 major religions claim holy status then yes, I would agree that such a restriction that benefits one religion over the others is wrong.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I would love for everyone in this world to come experience the almost magical experience and the feeling of awe you get when you first see the Holy mosques in Makkah and Madina but alas my respect for my religion and faith trump that wish.
I think having people of other religions come visit Makkah and Madina would do a lot more good for Islam than harm. But to many muslims, including myself, that’s a non-issue because it’s not negotiable.
February:04:2010 - 11:18
Talal,
I understand your sentiments. But I am not sure that majority of Muslims across the globe accept Saudi Arabia’s leadership, nor that they accept that Hadith you are talking about. I personally know a lot of Muslims who don’t. In fact, every Muslim I know does not believe in either of these two propositions. Of course no one has taken a vote, but if a worldwide voting is done, my guess is that majority of Muslims will not accept both of these propositions. And there is a reason behind this – majority of Muslims in the world do not practise Islam the way Saudi Arabia does.
I know that I am making an unpleasant statement, but that’s the way it is.
February:04:2010 - 11:30
I’ve heard that Saudi embassies, in fact, do some moderate level of checking on the bona fides of foreigners claiming to be Muslim, particularly in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. American Muslims have told me that they were required to provide evidence–usually in the form of a letter from an imam–that they were Muslim, that they had ‘reverted’ on such and such a date.
As I’ve never gone through the experience, I can’t speak from personal knowledge on this.
February:04:2010 - 11:40
Daisy,
You confuse leadership with custodianship. When talking about Makkah and Madina, Saudi Arabia is merely a custodian of the two holy cities. Also, like the Quran, the Hadith is an integral part of being a muslim. There’s no such thing as being half a muslim. You either accept the Quran as the word of God and you accept the Traditions of his Prophet PBUH and believe or you don’t. And that’s pretty much the core of Islam. Everything else is negotiable.
Now, I assume – and please excuse me if my assumptions are incorrect, that most of the muslims you know are live in the west? As I also have muslims friends who live there and I don’t know if it’s the pressure of western societies or the pure human need to be accepted by one’s community, but those friends tend to try to be either more politically correct or simply want to make Islam look more mainstream when compared with other major religions. Even if by doing so they contradict one some of Islam’s major principles. Now don’t get me wrong. It’s not my place to judge them nor is it anyone else’s. But that’s simply the case
Now going back to the leadership issue. Saudi Arabia has not asked to be a leader nor does it hold the position. But we can’t help it if that role is thrust upon us and are required to fill it. When muslims fight, they look to Saudi for guidance and help. When they need financial assistance, they look at Saudi. Never has Saudi Arabia, as a country, forced anyone to follow one form of Islam. Heck, we have the 4 main branches of Islam being practiced by Saudi citizens in Saudi Arabia.
Now sometimes, our financial assistance comes with some sort of political or religious baggage attached, but don’t all governments do that?
Let’s not demonize Saudi Arabia for the sake of demonizing it.
February:04:2010 - 11:43
John,
I’ve had a lot of friends and business associates that have visited me in the past. Never has a Saudi embassy, in my experience, rechecked or asked for proof. Might have some isolated incidents but it’s certainly not the norm.
February:04:2010 - 12:18
Talal, as I think about it, it’s those applying for Haj and Umrah visas who get the background check. There may not be any checking for simple business or other visas.
February:04:2010 - 13:36
Talal,
The fact is that the Two Cities are restricted because your prophet expelled non-Muslims from those areas. Doesn’t that bother you?
So you think that non-Muslims have no right to an opinion on the matter because it is a Muslim law in a Muslim country? Does that also hold true for apostasy or blasphemy? Are we, non-Muslims, allowed to have any opinion at all?
K.
February:04:2010 - 14:24
kactuz,
They were expelled from Madina for a reason. This is not a history lesson, so if you want to know why, you can look it up.
And please don’t twist my words. I never said that non-Muslims have no right to an opinion on matters that concern Muslim law in a Muslim country. I merely said it was irrelevant. You more than welcome to any opinion you wish to express. However that opinion is irrelevant in that you opinion will not change a Muslim law in a Muslim country regarding two Muslim cities that are considered holy by Muslims.
T.
February:04:2010 - 18:27
John,
Yeah, that seems more like it. I mean it would make sense to make sure that those that are applying to perform one of the pillars of islam are actually muslim.
But not once have any of my wife and my friends or our business associates been asked to prove their religion.
February:04:2010 - 20:09
I find it interesting that the complainant was happy to have his sect or religion (depending on which scholar one consults) indicated as Alevi, and only protested when it was deemed that Alevi was a sect of Islam and his card would have Islam, not Alevi, indicated on it.
Only then did he protest that he should not be required to share his beliefs.
It is up to those countries forming part of the European Union to deal with such issues through the mechanisms provided and to adhere to court decisions or parliamentary decisions in that regard. Within the no religion on the ID there certainly are restrictions in place for which one must prove one’s religion. Fair enough, as the example of the English Monarch being head of the Church of England, and therefore having interfaith marriage restrictions (danced around nicely by Prince Charles and Duchess Camila via a Scottish jig so to speak). Others might be teaching in a parochial school, or private religious school, working in a religious retreat, etc. The ID card doesn’t need to carry the religious ID for that reason, baptismal certificates, or bris certificates, or certificates of conversion are usually asked for.
Other states have the right to identify by religion, as not coming under this law, and having their own socio=political reasons for doing so. The judgment on human rights by the European HR court is not addressing itself to universal human rights, and in any case has no jurisdiction outside the European Union.
It also seems fair to me for a religion to be able to restrict access to its holy sites, as unfortunate as that may be for others.
Access to sites which have shared religious significance, like Jerusalem, should and do have shared access.
February:04:2010 - 23:50
Talal thank you for answering the question honestly.It got me thinking at deeper levels.
Do Muslims believe that by not allowing Non Muslims in Mecca and Medina perhaps they are preserving the religion. Is that an artificial preservative? What I mean by that it is IMO an insecurity mechanism with worst case senarios built in with a lot of IF’s from the devil.
If Non Muslims were allowed in Mecca & Medina, then (blah, blah)
If they were in, they would (blah, blah)
If they did blah blah, then
Hence Islam would be destroyed!
That is an interesting thought. If that were the ONLY reason, religion is stated on IDs then why do job applicants have to state their religion on applications before receiving employment offers? Religion is supposed to be known for dishing out punishments as well. I would recommend all the religious police give up their day jobs and do border patrol around Mecca and Medina and make sure that every person entering has “ISLAM” written on their batacka I.D.
February:05:2010 - 04:17
Sparky,
“I would recommend all the religious police give up their day jobs and do border patrol around Mecca and Medina and make sure that every person entering has “ISLAM” written on their batacka I.D.”
Agreed : )
February:05:2010 - 16:41
Talal,
The reason they were expelled is called “prejudice”. The Jews and Christians did not accept Islam. As your prophet became more powerful and extending his conquests, he became more and more intolerant of others. As he was dying he sent his armies north to conquer Syria. The Js and Cs were no threat to his authority.
Anyway, I am surprised that you support the right of the Zionists to expel the Palestinians from lands were they have lived for centuries – but that is Jewish religion and jewish law in a jewish country and we shouldn’t argue with that, right?
February:05:2010 - 16:58
kactuz,
Christians were never expelled. The Jews that were expelled from Madina were expelled for the following reason (I only state it because it seems your too lazy to go look for yourself):
*********
Battle of The Trench –
With the help of the exiled Banu Nadir, the Quraysh military leader Abu Sufyan had mustered a force of 10,000 men. Muhammad prepared a force of about 3000 men and adopted a new form of defense unknown in Arabia at that time: the Muslims dug a trench wherever Medina lay open to cavalry attack. The idea is credited to a Persian convert to Islam, Salman the Persian. The siege of Medina began on March 31 627 and lasted for two weeks.[107] Abu Sufyan’s troops were unprepared for the fortifications they were confronted with, and after an ineffectual siege lasting several weeks, the coalition decided to go home. During the battle, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, located at the south of Medina, had entered into negotiations with Meccan forces to revolt against Muhammad.
*********
In other words, Treason.
And from Khaybar for the following reason:
**********
Battle of Khaybar -
After signing the truce, Muhammad made an expedition against the Jewish oasis of Khaybar, known as the Battle of Khaybar. This was due to it housing the Banu Nadir (The people that fought with Quraysh – look above – in the Battle of the Trench), who were inciting hostilities against Muhammad.
********
As for Palestinians, I’m not one of them so I can’t speak on their behalf. However, I support the many UN resolutions in regards to the Israeli-Palestnian issue.
As far as my position goes, I really don’t care who did what to who 60-70 years ago. I just want everyone to get along. A just solution found to the problem that satisfies both the Israelis and Palestinians which would ensure that everyone lives in peace and dignity.
I, personally, am sick of this blame game. I want peace NOW. I want it for myself, my country, our region and most importantly, my daughter and her children after her.
But it is my belief that Israel’s law is secular and that it’s citizens are Jewish, Christian and Muslim. So it’s more like Jewish country, Secular law, citizens that follow different religions. So as long as their own citizens argue, why shouldn’t we?
February:06:2010 - 13:27
Talal–Agreed! Especially #18, #22, #28!
Now sometimes, our financial assistance comes with some sort of political or religious baggage attached, but don’t all governments do that?
Let’s not demonize Saudi Arabia for the sake of demonizing it.
Wakhah!
February:07:2010 - 22:11
Talal, let me correct you, if I may.
The ahadeeth tell us that Muhammad waged a long war with his neighbors after he left Mecca and moved to Medina. The battle of the Trench occurred because the Meccans were tired of the constant raids. It was one of only two defensive battles fought by Mohammed, the rest were all offensive, not including the dozens of raids personally led by Mohammed against villages and caravans. The Battle of the trench was not really much of a battle. It was more of a stand-off and the role of the Banu Qurayza was minor. Mohammad later attacked this tribe and massacred the men and boys, taking women and children as slaves. He justified this by saying the Jews were judged by their own scriptures (the same ones Muslims considered corrupt!).
The Quraiza had every reason to distrust and to oppose Muhammad, since he had already attacked and expelled two other Jewish tribes. Why should the Quraiza have expected to be treated any better? The fact is that Muhammad wanted a unified Arabia under his leadership (and Islam). Any group that stood in his way was attacked and conquered. Consider the Banu Mustaliq. He even invented an excuse (saying they were plotting and gathering against him) even if there is no evidence that this was true. Because they were a small but rich tribe, be invited others to join him on a surprise attack on that village. Remember, if you can, this incident was followed by the infamous “affair of the necklace” that ended with Mohammed declaring that false accusations of sexual immorality required 4 witness es and were punishable by death – this to protect Aisha. This is the same ruling used today to condemn youg girls who have been raped to death.
Anyway these battles were years before Mohammad’s death and before he captured Mecca. As you mention, Mohammad also attacked Khaybar, at night, as the Banu Nadir were getting up to go intop the fields. This was part of an unending pattern of attacks by Mohammud against all villages within 500 km. Mohammed was determined; his enemies unorganized and unprepared. After each conquest Muhammad killed and enslaved (Qurayza), enslaved or raped captives (Banu al Mustaliq) or enslaved or took half of their produce (Khaybar). If you lived in Arabia in the early 7th century, Mohammad would attack your village sooner or later. Note that each of these conquests there are many details. In Banu Al Mustaliq and Khaybar, Mohammed took wives from among the recent widows, contrary to the Quran (not that it matters because if asked I am sure he would have had a special revelation). In the case of Safiyya, it was clearly rape because we have the story of the guard that stayed outside the tent, afraid for Mohammed’s life. It is also possible that a Jewish woman of the Banu Nadir tribe attempted to poison Muhammad to avenge her slain relatives. Tabari says that the long illness after that led to Mohammed’s death was the result of that poisoning (Was that the ‘resistance’, then?)
The direct link you find between the Jews at Qurayza and Khaybar and the expulsion of Jews, Christians and pagans from Arabia does not exist. They are years apart. What we have is a religious cleansing based upon politics of power and desire for plunder. All non-Muslims had been subdued. In fact, these actions by Mohammed are the bluepprint used today by Muslims in their treatment of dhimmis (non-Muslims in an Islamic society). Everywhere Muslims dominate they persecute and discriminate against Non-Muslims.
In his final years, Mohammud became increasing aggressive and intolerant. He sent armies to attack Syria. He cursed both Christians and Jews on his deathbed: Narrated ‘Aisha and Ibn Abbas: On his death-bed Allah’s Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, “May Allah’s Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done. According to Muslim 4366, as narrated by Umar ibn al-Khattab, Umar heard the Messenger of Allah say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims. When he became Caliph, Umar expelled the few that were left, taking their properties. The Christians treated Mohammed kindly and even gave him shelter; this is how they were repaid.
The fact is that the ahadith are full of immoral actions by Mohammed — and Muslims refuse to be honest about them. You quote the Traditions but you don’t read the words. American soldiers kill innocents, yes, or make prisoners stand in their underware — and the Muslim world is outraged. Mohammed plunders, kills, rapes, tortures, and enslaves – and Muslims smile and say “Praise be upon him”.
Talal, you question my knowledge of Islam and call me indolent. I certainly am not the brightest star in the consolation Intelligence, but I believe that morals are absolute and apply to all. I question your morals. I question the honesty of Muslims.
February:07:2010 - 22:44
Let us demonize IT for the purpose of exorcising it!
I call upon all the demons especially those who have used Magic to take their positions to turn and revolt in the name of righteousness AND to submit to the goodwill and unconditional love in the name of the all Mightly all Powerful and the ever expanding consciousness.
February:07:2010 - 23:07
“Much wealth is in the house of the righteous, but trouble is in the income of the wicked.” Proverbs 15:6
February:08:2010 - 04:34
kactuz,
You have every right to question anything you wish to question. I’m glad to see that you have actually made an effort in your last response to actually merit any form of debate or discussion.
As for history, there are always two sides to every story and it all depends on which side you read. But to make it seem that the Prophet PBUH and the early followers of Islam could be anything but the underdog, to make them look as the persecutors as oppose to being the one persecuted is a farce.
But at least your clear on where you stand when it comes to Islam, it’s Prophet and everything that relates to either one of them. From both our posts it is clear that we can go back and forth when it comes to the same issue or story quoting opposing versions of the same events but will no doubtfully never come to the same conclusions as this debate has been raging for centuries and will no doubt continue for decades to come. For as long as there is prejudice in this world there will be people that hate for the sake of hating.
Back to the original point, because as I stated, this is not a historical lesson, I am still of the opinion that when it comes to access to Makkah and Madina, the fact remains that it’s a Muslim law, in a Muslim country regarding two cities considered holy by Muslims and only Muslims.
With regards to Islamic history and tradition, the fact remains that both Christian and Jewish communities thrived under Islamic rule and were far from being persecuted. They were treated with dignity and respect and allowed to live their lives and follow their religions in peace and respect. Sadly I can’t say the same about the Jewish communities that lived under the Rule of Christian or Western cultures but that’s another issue.
Now you may consider this a victory. You may also think that I have conceded. I don’t care. But the fact remains that there are over 1.6B people on this planet that follow the teachings of the man you think so lowly of. It doesn’t seem to me that it’s fair to say that they are all like me, with questionable morals or merely dumb liars.
History is a funny thing. Written by many people with many points of view. Now your more than free to dwell in the past as that is one of the many rights your entitled to. But personally, I prefer to live in the present and make it a better place.