Missed The Target?

Target was a new lead store in Maple Ridge (yes I know this states volumes as Maple Ridge is very green environmentally but not so 'green' economically) and therefore a new tenant will be needed at the downtown location (not far from this locale).

Maple Ridge is no Vancouver.

I will with hesitation state, that with very much hesitation, when I was looking for career alternatives, prior to earning my security licence, I considered applying at Target Canada and the new Maple Ridge store.

Mr. Bobby Buff (let him take some of the blame) had suggested that I apply at Target.

I considered with my education applying for management training and therefore attempted to work through the Target Canada website.

Again with very much hesitation.

I have applied for many employment opportunities online, but this was one of the worst websites I have attempted to navigate.

I doubt I even officially applied in the end as the site worked so poorly.

For example, under employment history, I would type 'Homecare' or 'Homecaring' as in working on behalf of my disabled and deaf Mother that lives downstairs. This Target Canada website would not accept either and instead I had to choose an actual homecaring company.

To choose one would not to truthful, would it? Why would the site not have self-employed as an option?

This data entry worked the same for other entries. I think in the end I completed all I could with the application, frustrated by the lack of professionalism on the site and abandoned the site.

Instead, I wrote an essay by email, separate from the site, describing my qualifications and what I would be looking to offer to Target Canada.

They responded within a few days with a generic email that the store would be opening soon.

The store now closed two years later...

Therefore, based on my limited experience with Target Canada and the news I have read since the entry into Canada; this recent news is not surprising.

Condolences for those that have lost employment.

Around the web...

Hit the target...

Does A Right To Blaspheme, Make It Right To Blaspheme?

Paris-Google+

BBC News

Cited

'13 January 2015 Last updated at 02:23 ET

Defiant Charlie Hebdo depicts Prophet Muhammad on cover'

Cited

'This week's edition of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo will show a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad holding a "Je suis Charlie" sign.

Above the cartoon are the words "All is forgiven".

This comes after Islamist gunmen last week raided the magazine's Paris office, killing 12 people.' 

Cited

'The slogan in French "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") was widely used following the 7 January attack on the magazine, as people sought to show their support.

Three million copies of Wednesday's edition are being printed.

Normally only 60,000 are sold each week. Charlie Hebdo's lawyer Richard Malka told France Info radio: "We will not give in. The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme." Survivors of the massacre have been working on the magazine from the offices of the French daily newspaper Liberation. Five of Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists - including the editor - were killed in the attack. The new edition will be created "only by people from Charlie Hebdo", its financial director, Eric Portheault, told AFP news agency.

Contributions from other cartoonists were declined.'

End Citations

I agree philosophically that for the sake of liberty and freedom of speech, the satirical magazine should continue, if those that operate it wish to do so.

However, in agreement with my senior colleague and security officer at work, I would take some issue with the concept of...

"...The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme."

The right to blaspheme does not necessarily mean it is right or wise to blaspheme.

Consider

Romans 12:15-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but [a]associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. [b]Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but [c]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Footnotes: Romans 12:16 Or accommodate yourself to lowly things Romans 12:17 Lit Take thought for Romans 12:19 Lit give a place New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

I ponder on especially here in this context, 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

Yes, one should not submit to terrorism or Islamic terrorism, but as was discussed with my Sikh co-worker, why throw fuel on the fire by risking purposely offending more Muslims at this heated historical point?

Rather than creating a satirical intellectual environment, where dialogue could take place at least in theory, these latest actions by Je suis Charlie read like a declaration of war or continuation of war, if one prefers, after a brutal and horrible attack that killed twelve.

Those creating such satire also unfortunately risk further criminal, terrorist acts committed by those within radical Islam.

I am not stating the satirical magazine should stop presenting what it believes is true in satirical form.

If this disagrees with Islam, or another worldview, so be it.

Intentional blasphemy against Islam to irritate the other side, is not a right or wise action when done for the sake of intellectual war.

In the context of intellectual debate it might be reasonable to blaspheme, or commit what is understood to be blasphemy, as in presenting unorthodox religious, theological and philosophical views which may offend some.

I state this as a definite non-Muslim that is a Christian theologian and philosopher.

Browning lists blasphemy as a deliberate assault on the majesty of God punishable by death. (p.46).

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Russell Norman Murray shared Britain First's video.

January 11 at 4:34pm · 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=649326908545907&pnref=story

Interesting via Jeff Jenkins

77,835 Views

Britain First

VIDEO: The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority **MUST WATCH!**

Saudi Arabian Blogger Sentenced To Prison, Fine & 1, 000 Lashes

I am worth more as a free blogger, not having my way paid. In my case I am paying my government and bank student loans and building a decent bank account with that same (mega corporate) bank.

BBC January 9

Cited

'A Saudi Arabian blogger has been publicly flogged after being convicted of cybercrime and insulting Islam, reports say.

Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, was flogged 50 times. The flogging will be carried out weekly, campaigners say.

Mr Badawi, the co-founder of a now banned website called the Liberal Saudi Network, was arrested in 2012.'

Cited

'In addition to his sentence, Mr Badawi was ordered to pay a fine of 1 million riyals ($266,000; £175,000).

In 2013 he was cleared of apostasy, which could have carried a death sentence.

Last year Mr Badawi's lawyer was sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty of a range of offences in an anti-terrorism court, the Associated Press news agency reported.

'Act of cruelty'

The flogging took place outside a mosque in the Red Sea city of Jeddah after Friday prayers, witnesses said. AFP news agency, quoting people at the scene, said Mr Badawi arrived at the mosque in a police car and had the charges read out to him in front of a crowd. He was then made to stand with his back to onlookers and whipped, though he remained silent, the witnesses said. 

The sentence was widely condemned by human rights groups.

"The flogging of Raif Badawi is a vicious act of cruelty which is prohibited under international law," said Said Boumedouha of Amnesty International. "By ignoring international calls to cancel the flogging Saudi Arabia's authorities have demonstrated an abhorrent disregard for the most basic human rights principles."

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict version of Islamic law and does not tolerate political dissent. It has some of the highest social media usage rates in the region, and has cracked down on domestic online criticism, imposing harsh punishments.'

End Citations

I am making no specific moral or legal judgments in regard to Mr. Badawi or his lawyer, or their character. I do not know the extent of the crimes they were supposedly guilty of in specific context.

I am concerned that a State is charging and convicting persons with religious crimes against the State.

Saudi Arabia has strict Islamic law related to culture and therefore is an Islamic State which is largely intolerant of opposing religious and political views.

Saudi Arabia is a prime example for those in the Western world with secular worldviews, Christian and other views that support democracy and reasonable freedoms that this type of State Islam is very much opposed to democracy and freedom.

Therefore in the West, even in initial stages with growing Islamic populations, to prevent possible political radicalization which risks Western democracy and freedom on a large demographic scale, Sharia law or Islamic law should not be legally permitted as law of the land, in any sense, in the Western world. Instead all citizens should live under the same law, yet with reasonable religious freedoms.

In the same way, that as a Christian, I do not legally in the Western world live under 'Christian law' or Mosaic Law and yet I have reasonable religious freedom to follow the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Biblical Theology.

London-trekearth

Brief Opine On USA Today Article From Radical Islamic Cleric

Paris-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Albert Mohler and The Briefing today cited this very interesting article from quote 'Anjem Choudary... a radical Muslim cleric in London and a lecturer in sharia.'

Albert Mohler

USA Today January 8

Cited

'Anjem Choudary 10:52 a.m. EST January 8, 2015

Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?'

Cited

'Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.'

Although documented as the views of a radical Muslim, here in written form from USA today is politically incorrect philosophy and theology from an Islamic cleric and lecturer living in Western Europe/The United Kingdom.

Although disturbing views are documented; it is at least refreshing to see non-politically Islamic views presented from major media because such views have significant impact in the world today, both Islamic and now Western.

Cited

'Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.'

From a Christian and New Testament perspective and view, the triune Biblical God in Christ is to be obeyed with commandments and in the making of disciples, for example, Matthew 28. 

However, the state is to be obeyed in regard to law and order, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

Therefore, the law is not to be taken into the hands of the Christian for religious reasons, but rather is to be obeyed. This is always the case unless the State would demand obedience to laws and regulations that would basically force one to deny Christian faith and philosophy, in whole or part, in favour of the State.

Christian disobedience would not be warranted because the honour of God has been violated or because the laws of Christianity and the New Testament has been violated, but would be warranted only because a Christian was being prohibited by the State from practicing within reason, freedom of religion.

Therefore, a drastic theological difference between New Testament Christianity and radical Islamic is presented.

Cited

'The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.'

As much as my Christian worldview differs from secular worldviews, I do not disagree with secular Western states that seek within reason for the sake of national security to prohibit radical Islamic movement within their borders. 

These measures are necessary to protect a nation from potential terrorism. These are also necessary as protection from potentially large Islamic population and related possible Islamic radicalization in a political context.

I am not stating whatsoever that Islam should be outlawed in Western nations and do reason that moderate Muslims can live within a Western structure.

Cited

'It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.'

The breaking of law of order and murder is extremely morally and ethically wrong in the context of attempting to protect one's Prophet...

I side with Western governments here.