This was an interesting article.  I have never thought about people living in islamic countries who are not islamic, and what their lives might be like.  The stories of oppression and religious intolerance remind me of medieval europe, when religion ruled state and everyday life.  I know I have been talking about England and it's history a lot, but I see a definite parallel between these two stories.  When Henry the eighth was in power, he split from the papacy.  He made Englands government the ruler on religion.  This is like the Sharia being the basis of government and law in majority-islam countries.  In the article you gave us, there was a story about a women in Pakistan who was put to death.  She was put to death on the little charge of insulting Mohammed.  This is very similar to the stories from the inquisition in Spain, and the war on papacy and/or protestantism in England.  People who were not the religion of the ruler of the time, were sought out and "removed" on the littlest charges.  All for the benefit of purifying England of course.  Religious intolerance is a very common theme throughout history.  Someone's religion often incites high emotions, and violence.  And nobody wants to admit they might be wrong.  And religious intolerance is focused not now on Europe, but in the middle east. The violence that we see escalating seems to be from Islamic extremists.  The point of the author is that these extremists are persecuting the christians in the islamic countries, which, even though it is something we rarely think about, is an escalating problem.  I think that she has a very good point, and that this story might be something to keep an eye on.

So after reading a little about the situation in Syria, I think that I would support the rebels.  I think that, living in a democratic country, I am probably biased against anything other than democracy.  Even so, I think that democracy has proven itself to be a good system and that any nation who wants democracy should have it.  The evidence against the Assad regime seems pretty damning too.  They're not taking peace suggestions, the military is in the streets with children and civilians, and they are not releasing the prisoners they say they are.  The Syrian government controls the media and public life of the citizens, and the citizens are sick of it.  It doesn't seem like much of a presidency to me if the presidency is automatically handed down from father to son, and they stay in power for a total of forty years, instead of switching out power every few years like the united states does.  I also think the fact the their leader refuses to step down, even with his own people and the whole european union calling for it, further reveals that this is not a real presidency.  After all, in the united states can't we impeach and get rid of our president if we would like? Even if I might side with the rebels, I do not think that the United States should get involved.  I do not think it is our fight.  I think that the country needs to work this out within themselves.  Besides, they are not even officially at civil war yet, so our interference would