Good means high quality

Okay, here's the deal.  I may be wrong; if I am, someone will correct me. 

I have been thinking of what it means to place the adjective "good" in front of certain words to describe quality.  The definition of good (from Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)) denotes, "of high quality or standard, either on an absolute scale or in relation to another or others." 

So if we say a student is a "good" student, we have to look at the standard by which that student is measured.  Presumably, the standards by which a student must live is usually attending classes, doing the work assigned, making a good grade on any exams given, doing the required, assigned papers and making a good grade, maintaining good conduct in class and on campus, fulfilling all the requirements in an exemplary way, and keeping an excellent attitude that represents the values of the school.  All of this, and even more, that would cause many in the school to value the student as having done all with "high quality."

Okay, what about an employee?  If we designate an employee as a "good employee," we would expect that he is always prompt, gets to work on time, leaves only after quitting time, produces excellent job, receives evaluations that are well above average, even outstanding, or excellent, works well with others, supports the vision and mission of the employer, consistently produces outstanding services or products, and never abuses time off benefits. 

What about a "good leader?"  We would assume the individual knows the job inside and out, motivates the followers to give their best, is always out front showing the way, being a mentor, accepting only the best quality of service or material while producing the same as an example for all his team, being very supportive of each team member and leading each to excellence in every instance and circumstance.

Keep in mind that each one of these require the individual to produce the highest quality of services in whatever job or situation in which the person finds himself.  The standards are set, the individual knows the standards, internalizes those standards, follows the leaders above him, demonstrates excellent motivation to complete all aspects of the standards, and delivers the highest quality of services or products in line with the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the organization in which that "good" person belongs. 

So we all know there are judgments made as each person in any organization have their personal actions relative to the organization's standards measured against those standards.  Each owner, CEO, middle leadership, or supervisor measures or is measured against the standards of performance set by the organization.  In that measurement, a judgment is made regarding the performance of consistency and correlation to the organization's standards.  In that process any organization generally ends up with a profile of designations that form a continuum of performance.  In fact, in some organizations that operate on merit, even the pay salaries based on the quality of performance.  It is rare that everyone would be rated, "good."  Some may even be rated "average," while others may even be rated "poor."

Remember, we operate under laws, regulations, policies, rules, understandings, operational guidelines, accreditation standards, maybe even a handshake.  Each organization makes their standards known in some way.  They publish them, recite them, or even put them in videos, DVDs, or other forms of material so they can be reviewed and maintained.  The organization usually provides some sort of training, be it an academy, a formal course, posting training classes, on-the-job-training, on-line, or simply reading assignments.  Having completed the training, there is usually a criterion established for each learning objective to measure the individual's knowledge or behavior against.  Experience begins for each person and continued assessment and evaluation is completed at milestones, intervals, or perhaps even randomly throughout the person's career.

All of these processes are familiar to most people regarding students, leaders, and employees.  There is another part of life, however, that affects most every person in regard to lifestyle.  Just to keep it simple, let's not use other cultures, but stick with the American culture for which most in the United States are familiar.  Let's look at faith, personal faith.  Faith is faith, whether it is Jewish faith, Muslim faith, Christian faith, or any breakdown of specific sects within any of those faiths.  Does the same process apply regarding the nomenclature of a person's faith regarding being a "good" Jew, a "good" Muslim, or a "good" Christian?

A Jewish person will study his "Holy" book, the Talmud, the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch.  The Muslim studies the Koran, which Muslims believe is the sacred text of Islam, and records the revelations of God to Muhammad.  A Christian claims the Holy Scriptures which include both the Old Testament and the New Testament and places his faith in Jesus, the Son of God as his eternal salvation.

Each of those sacred books offer to each of the persons in those respective faiths a "standard" by which the individual is measured relative to the degree to which the person may be known as "orthodox" in their faith.  Again, the degree to which the individual in each faith actually practices the "standards" in each sacred book determines the "goodness" or otherwise relative to that individual's actual faith.

To determine the level of "good" for each person in each faith, the individual demonstrates his or her own commitment of belief and action in regard to each of the tenants of faith in each standard within each of the respective sacred books.  Therefore, to the highest degree to which a person adheres to each of the standards determines the degree of quality the person reaches in his or her devotion to the standards.  If the following of the standards are adamantly "religious" producing "high quality" of belief, or faith, the person is said to be a "good Jew" or a "good Muslim" or a "good Christian."

There is a difference, however, in this trichotomy.  As stated above, usually the standard by which a person is deemed "good" is following the rules of the standards which are presumed to be good and righteousness in and of themselves.  Within the culture of the United States those standards are related to the "good of mankind" and useful in producing results and outcomes that are considered the best for the welfare of all of our fellow humans.  Standards for making automobiles produce the best car or truck for the protection of all owners.  The standards for education seek to make the best citizen a person can be; well educated, highly qualified, knowledgeable, and intelligent.  Likewise for leaders; the standards are of the highest standards that usually point to effective, functional, and solid leadership skills.

The same is true for the matters of faith.  The Jewish faith lives by the Ten Commandments, having One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The Christian faith takes the standards from the Holy Bible and the teachings of Jesus, along with the love and acceptance that God, through Jesus offers.  So, when a person learns, practices, and lives by those standards they are said to be "good" Jews or "good" Christians.

That breaks down when it comes to the Muslim faith.  That is true because there seems to be two standards the Muslim followers may choose to take.  It appears that the Koran has two different standards that a person who wants to be a Muslim has to choose to follow.  One portion of the sacred writings point a person to a Religion of Peace, where the Muslim of that sect will coexist with others who are not of the Muslim faith.  The second portion of the sacred writings seem to point to actions a person must take that includes enslaving women, raping children by forcing marriage at even a prepubescent age, identifying those who will not believe as that subset does as infidels, with the permission from the sacred writings to actually kill those who are infidels.

Which portion of the Muslim population may be described as "good" Muslims?  If the portion of the Koran that points to stoning people, cutting off the heads of women because they talk to a man who is not their husband, and waging jihad against the infidels, killing people for failing to change their beliefs to join the Muslim faith, can this portion be called "good" when measured against the Koran.  Actually, the answer is "Yes" ONLY when measured against the Koran.  It is "good" because the person who is placing his faith in that sacred writing actually believes that with all his heart, accepts it, internalizes it, builds a lifestyle around it, that person is doing what the Koran is telling him to do.  As with all the other tests of faith, that makes this action pronounced as "good" for that person.  This is true in much the same way as a Klan member can be called a "good" Klan member only within the context of the collective membership of the Klan. 

Conversely, if the sect of Muslim who does not follow the Koran completely, and fails to actively submit to its teachings that command the atrocities of killing people, raping children, and all the rest, that person cannot be deemed a "good" Muslim because he is unfaithful to his own sacred writings.  Within the collective membership of the Muslim faith, that person is considered just another "infidel."  All of the judgments reserved for infidels are carried out for that person as well.

The problem is the inter-connectedness  that position offers when it is measured against the collective standards of human nature in the rest of the culture.  Enslaving women, raping children, killing infidels, stoning women who talk to other men, systematically killing identified groups of people in the society does not mix well with being anything "good."  Therefore, when we hear the President and other left-wing liberals talking about the "good" Muslims, which person in the Muslim faith is he talking about?

Jim Killebrew