Don't want to hijack the thread. Only post on this topic, I swear. This is the agreement that I entered into. I'm pretty sure most/all pharmacists swear by this oath before graduating. It seems not all of them bother themselves with it afterwards... :rolleyes:



Code of Ethics for Pharmacists

Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

Good grief :confused:


Council: Mongtomery schools cave to pressue with Islam book
Leah Fabel, The Examiner
2008-06-07 12:21:05.0


Washington, D.C. -
A new report issued by the American Textbook Council says books approved for use in local school districts for teaching middle and high school students about Islam caved in to political correctness and dumbed down the topic at a critical moment in its history.

"Textbook editors try to avoid any subject that could turn into a political grenade," wrote Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, who railed against five popular history texts for "adjust[ing] the definition of jihad or sharia or remov[ing] these words from lessons to avoid inconvenient truths."

Sewall complains the word jihad has gone through an "amazing cultural reorchestration" in textbooks, losing any connotation of violence. He cites Houghton Mifflin's popular middle school text, "Across the Centuries," which has been approved for use in Montgomery County Schools. It defines "jihad" as a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil."

"But that is, literally, the translation of jihad," said Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and acclaimed author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam." Aslan explained that the definition does not preclude a militant interpretation.

"How you interpret [jihad] is based on whatever your particular ideology, or world viewpoint, or even prejudice is," Aslan said. "But how you define jihad is set in stone."

A statement from Montgomery County Public Schools said that all text used by teachers had been properly vetted and were appropriate for classroom uses.

Aslan said groups like Sewall's are often more concerned about advancing their own interpretation of Islam than they are about defining its parts and then allowing interpretation to happen at the classroom level.

Sewall's report blames publishing companies for allowing the influence of groups like the California-based Council on Islamic Education to serve throughout the editorial process as "screeners" for textbooks, softening or deleting potentially unflattering topics within the faith.

"Fundamentally I'm worried about dumbing down textbooks," he said, "by groups that come to state education officials saying we want this and that - and publishers need to find a happy medium."

Maryland state delegate Saqib Ali refrained from joining the fray. "The job of assigning curriculum is best left to educators and the school board, and I trust their judgment," he said.

The enemy has a name

By DANIEL PIPES
Jerusalem Post
Jun 18, 2008

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the US government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN FACT, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level US statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" - whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.
BUT OBSERVERS have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with US government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists."

IN FACT, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory; the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

THE SECOND goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.


The writer, director of the Middle East Forum, is Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.


Posted By: Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat
 

From the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The original is available on the HSGA website....attached is a less sexy version.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_file...mistReport.pdf

Don't know if this was already mentioned, but DoD has issued similar policy- Jihad is not to be coupled with violence, word extremist not to be used when talking about Moslems, etc. Idea is not to give mainstream Islamic ideas a link to extremist ideas. I'll try to find the memo unless someone else has it handy.

I have yet to get a straight answer from any Muslim what they think about terrorism, though they generally state a religion of peace the fact is they avoid the subject or try to divert the conversation elsewhere.

Do I think all Muslims are bad people, no. But I do feel they are Muslims first and foremost, if they happen to be US Citizens they are Americans 2nd or 3rd and The Koran and its Islamic Laws take precedence over US Laws, personal rights and values.

A great many Muslims come to our country and wish not acclimate but rather ask our country to accommodate them and their culture. Europe and the especially the UK is a glaring example of this.

So Yes I would say we are at war with the Islamic culture.

Thank goodness the majority of Christians in our country don't also put the Bible in front of the Constitution. Although we do have our abortion clinic bombers, they are a very small minority.

I'm not so sure we are at war with Islamic culture as much as we are attempting to export the idea of the sanctity of secular, Constitutional law over other forms of control. Islamic culture as it appears to most of us in reality (as opposed to the abstract) would seem to overwhelmingly favor scripture over anything- to the extent that scripture should form the basis for law, as opposed to a legal code that is founded in certain liberal assumptions and able to be modified by popular consent within certain liberal boundaries (Bill of Rights, for example). Interestingly, the UN and other groups are supposed to be advocating certain fundamental rights, but rarely will they espouse changing cultures/religions to do so. It is not PC.

Thank god Jesus said "Render unto Caesar", etc. We have been able to separate our government and our religion, even if many of our fundamental liberal beliefs came out of religion. We have been able to use those concepts to move forward to a secular, more open and transparent and functional society. Not sure how Islam will reform or change since they don't have that same "Render unto Caesar" doctrine. Chrisitianity seemed to be focused on the Afterlife and making due as much as possible in the here and now, working hard to show thanks for those gifts bestowed upon us by a higher being. Islam seems to be focused mainly on how to try to change this world into what the prophet thinks it should be like- how to live your life and survive against the infidel- and to accept almost everything as God's will. Hard to merge that into a secular, globalized world, IMO.

Activists: 9 Iranians Convicted of Adultery Set to Be Stoned to Death
 

Where's my friend Astraeus? In iran you are muslim and follow islamic law or you die a horrible death.

Apostasy and blasphemy are capital crimes? Only in muslim/islamic countries.

apostasy:

1 : renunciation of a religious faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy

The catholic, baptist, mormon et al should take note of islamic law, this is how you KEEP the rank and file in line!

Team Sergeant


Activists: 9 Iranians Convicted of Adultery Set to Be Stoned to Death
Sunday, July 20, 2008

TEHRAN, Iran — Eight women and one man convicted of adultery are set to be stoned to death in Iran, activists said Sunday.

Lawyer and women's rights activist, Shadi Sadr, said the nine were convicted of adultery in separate cases in different Iranian cities.

"Their verdicts are approved, and they may be executed at any time," she told reporters.

Sadr, who has been leading a campaign in Iran against stoning deaths since 2006, said trial protocol was not applied properly in the cases. Six of the nine were convicted based solely on judges' decisions with no witnesses or the presence of their lawyers during their confessions, she said.

Most of the nine come from areas of Iran that have low rates of literacy and some did not understand the cases against them, she said.

One of Sadr's colleagues, Mohammad Mostafai, said his client, Malak Qorbani, had plead guilty to adultery even though she did not know the meaning of the charge.

The nine are between 27 and 50 years old, among them a male music teacher who was convicted of adultery for having an affair with one of his students, the activists said.

"We are trying to stop the implementation of their verdicts. And secondly, we want to amend the country's penal law, in which death by stoning is prescribed," Sadr said.

Calls to judiciary officials were not immediately returned on Sunday.

Under Iran's Islamic laws, adultery in the only capital offense punishable by stoning. Other capital offenses in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, drug trafficking, prostitution, treason and espionage.

The punishment is also applied in some other countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Nigeria.

A man is usually buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck. Those carrying out the verdict then throw stones until the condemned dies.

Stoning was widely imposed in the early years after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought hard-line clerics to power. But in recent years, it has seldom been applied, though the government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences. The last stoning death confirmed by the government was in July 2007.

In the recent years, reformist legislators demanded an end to death by stoning as a punishment for adultery, but opposition from hard-line clerics sidelined their efforts.

Along with adultery, other capital offenses in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, drug trafficking, prostitution, treason and espionage.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html

Thought this was on point to the discussion. This would be the direction we are headed for.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386161,00.html

The Afghan journalist who filmed and photographed the July 12 execution of two women by the Taliban says he was detained and held for two days by authorities in Afghanistan for suspected ties to terrorists.

The footage and photographs of the executions were distributed by the Associated Press and widely circulated on the Internet, giving rise to suspicions that the photographer, Rahmatullah Naikzad, was connected with the Taliban.

In an exclusive telephone interview, Naikzad told FOXNews.com that he turned himself in to Afghan authorities early this week and was held in custody and investigated for 48 hours. He said officials "asked me why I went to the Taliban at night — how come they didn't harm me."

Naikzad said he has no ties with the Taliban, and he gave the following account of why and how he became witness to the executions.
He said the Taliban issued a press statement calling all media outlets in the province of Ghazni, which has a large Taliban presence, to cover them “carrying out the Shariah” on a few burglars in their custody. Naikzad said he believed the Taliban would be cutting off the limbs of their prisoners, according to strict Islamic law.

He said he and other journalists were reluctant to go because of security concerns, but that an unknown person who identified himself as a member of the Taliban contacted him directly on his cell phone and assured him of his safety.

“We talked for about five minutes on the phone, and he said my safety was absolutely guaranteed,” Naikzad explained.

He said he checked with the Kabul office of the Associated Press, for which he works as a stringer, and then set off around sunset on his motorbike to a village on the outskirts of Ghazni City, only to find that no other journalist was there.

That, he said, was when he learned it was two women — and not burglars — whom the Taliban had arrested, and that they had been charged with running a prostitution ring for coalition soldiers and local men.

Naikzad interviewed and filmed the Taliban, who said on tape that the two women “took the pure girls and women” and “indulged them in immoral acts.”

After the interview, he said, the Taliban picked up the two burqa-clad women from a house, put them in a white Toyota Corolla and drove off to a different location.

Naikzad said he followed the Corolla on his bike, with a Taliban car following him.

About a half-hour later, he said, they stopped near Arzo village, close to the Ghazni-Paktika highway, on the outskirts of the province.

The women — one of whom appeared to be carrying a shopping bag — were then taken out of the car and told they would be executed.

Naikzad said he tried to persuade the Taliban not to carry out the executions.

“I told one of the Taliban, ‘These are women, they are harmless. Why would you want to kill them?’ But they didn’t listen to me.”

When his pleas went unheeded, he said, he asked the Taliban if he could film the execution.

“I wanted to show how the women were killed and have a proof of their death,” he said.

He said the Taliban turned him down, but his camera was already rolling and he kept it on when he placed it on the seat of his bike.

Two Taliban cocked their guns. Soon, five bullets were sprayed into the back of one woman, and six or seven pierced the head of the other. The women shouted and cried for a short moment, then went silent.

Naikzad said the Taliban did not notice that his camera was still rolling.

But the camera did not remain stationary. The videotape shows that it moved from left to right, apparently to capture the two executioners.

“I was standing near the bike, so my body may have touched the camera,” Naikzad said, explaining the movement of the camera. He stumbled slightly and added, “I myself nudged the camera a little bit.”

Naikzad said the Taliban offered him the opportunity to come with them for the night, since the road back home was dangerous. He said he declined the offer, and rode home.

The next morning, he said, he consulted with the AP, because he wanted to return to the village and photograph the women’s bodies. He said the AP agreed and he rode back to the scene of the executions.

Villagers stood nearby as he filmed and photographed the corpses. A stream of dried blood trailed from one body. The other woman’s shopping bag remained near her, its contents scattered.

“There was a beige handbag and a comb … a mirror and some cosmetics in it,” Naikzad said.

Naikzad said he was detained for two days after his video appeared on the Internet, but that he was released for three days following the death of a relative. He said he was treated well in custody, and that he is cooperating with the National Directorate of Security, the agency that interrogated him.

“Around 60 pages of investigative material were produced from my interrogation,” he said.

“I am willingly going back into custody once the [three-day] period ends,” he said, adding, “I have nothing to fear.”

Some bloggers who have seen the video of the executions have expressed concerns that Naikzad may be connected with the Taliban, and that the Associated Press was used as a propaganda tool.

But Naikzad denied any ties with the terrorists and said he has given equal coverage to the different sides in conflict in the province.

“If I have photographed Taliban casualties, I have also photographed American casualties. I have been balanced in my journalism,” he said.

Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press, said in response to an inquiry: "The Associated Press has been following this case closely with some concern."

Iran
 

Is there any chance the Iranian people themselves get sick of the radical Islamists and throw the bastards out themselves? Is there enough support to do so among the educated urban classes and the non Persian minorities? Or, does the Revolutionary Guard have such a gestapo like hold on the public to make any such action impossible?

That would be correct.

Freedom of speech and freedom to assemble is one our "our" rights, not an islamic or middle eastern right. Neither of these "rights" have ever been known to "most" islamic tribes.

Make no mistake most middle eastern countries are pure dictatorships.

TS

(post #947, 3/10/2008)
More from the same guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8

1/3 of Muslims believe killing for religion in OK
 

This from the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-students.html

1/3 is a lot of Muslims.

People need to wake up before it is too late.

1/3 of Muslims believe killing for religion is OK...

Maybe this 1/3 could identify themselves and line up in a nice neat row...

...after all, they did say that they it's OK to be killed for religion.

Islamic Group Claims Responsibility
 

Such shocking and disturbing news! islamic cowards murdering in the name of allah, again........



Islamic Group Claims Responsibility for India Bombings That Killed 45; 30 Detained
Sunday, July 27, 2008

AHMADABAD, India — Authorities scoured a western Indian city Sunday for those responsible for a series of bombings that killed at least 45 people, detaining 30 people as a little-known group claimed responsibility for the attack. It was the second series of blasts in India in two days.

"In the name of Allah the Indian Mujahedeen strike again! Do whatever you can, within 5 minutes from now, feel the terror of Death!" said an e-mail from the group sent to several Indian television stations minutes before the blasts began.

The e-mail's subject line said "Await 5 minutes for the revenge of Gujarat," an apparent reference to 2002 riots in the western state which left 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, dead. The historic city of Ahmadabad is one of the largest cities in Gujarat and was the scene of much of the 2002 violence.

State government spokesman Jaynarayan Vyas said 45 people were killed and 161 wounded when at least 16 bombs went off Saturday evening in several crowded neighborhoods. The attack came a day after seven smaller blasts killed two people in the southern technology hub of Bangalore.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391747,00.html