Posts Tagged ‘Islamic’

When Will Obama Go to an Atheist Meetup?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

President Obama has not attended an atheist meetup, drinking skepchickally, skeptics in the pub, or other nonbeliever event since he took office, despite his inaugural address pledge to acknowledge nonbelievers, and his continued insistence on “reaching across the aisle” to acknowledge and respect those with different beliefs.

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace,” Obama stated in his inaugural address.

Within his first few months in office, Obama has already reached that hand of respect out to all corners of the earth, from offers to speak with leaders of Muslim nations to actually visiting heavily Islamic countries , bringing offerings of peace, and an explicit assurance that the United States is not at war with Islam.

Domestically, Obama has reinvigorated the controversial faith-based initiative, favoring religious discrimination in organizations that receive federal funding, and stocking his advisory panel with a heavy majority of theists.

Despite this overt and frequent outreach to religious organizations domestic and foreign, Obama has made no effort to connect with the non-believers he pledged to treat with the same respect and attention as believers. His reference to non-believers seems, in hindsight, to have been nothing other than a hat-tip to the often left-leaning fifteen percent of the nation, most of whom helped him get elected.

Obama has also pledged to seek a new church for himself and his family, subjecting his minor daughters to indoctrination in dogma almost universally rejected by the scientists of the world, with details disagreed upon by nearly every other religious denomination or sect. He has yet to choose one, indicating that he must take into consideration the interference he would cause with church attendance of fellow church members. Why has he not taken into consideration the idea that by choosing to be an active practitioner of an ancient superstitious ritual, he interferes with the ability of both non-believers and those who believe in different superstitions to be treated with respect and equality in a nation founded with an explicit separation of church and state?

President Obama, pick yourself a church along with your wife. Let your children play in the White House playground, or have them tutored by someone who respects reality and can encourage them to be skeptical instead of dogmatic. And then make a surprise visit to a Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris lecture/debate, or an atheist meetup. You might get some shit from the fundamentalists, but didn’t you say something about reaching out to everyone, despite their beliefs? You reached out to one of the most hated homophobes, Rick Warren, for your invocation. What’s stopping you from reaching out to people who don’t happen to share your monotheistic point of view?

This article is a rebuttal to the Fox News Blog comment “BILL SAMMON: When Will Obama Go to Church?” by Bill Sammon, Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel, which, out of all the things that someone could find fault about Obama over, chooses to attack Obama’s lack of church attendance since his swearing-in.

Decriminalization of Homosexuality – Now Powered by Obama

Thursday, March 19th, 2009

The Bush administration refused to support it, because it wanted to protect states’ rights to ban same-sex marriage, but the Obama administration has announced that it will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality. Sixty-six other U.N. members have already declared their support.

According to The Washington Post, more than 85 countries still outlaw homosexuality, and in several Islamic nations, it is punishable by death.1

The non-binding declaration urges states to pass laws to ensure that “sexual orientation or gender identity” can “not be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.”

  1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/18/administration_to_support_un_d.html?wprss=44 ; Those nations include: Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. [<]

Protest to take Tamil Tigers off Terrorist List

Friday, February 20th, 2009

There was a marching protest today in front of the White House where activists shouted out for President Obama to “help us”; meaning to take the Tamil Tigers off the terrorist list.

The Tamil Tigers, according to Wikipedia:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, Tamil: தமிழழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள் ISO 15919: tamiḻ iiḻa viṭutalaip pulikaḷ), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant terrorist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign since the 1970s to secede from the Sri Lankan state in order to create a separate Tamil state in the north and east of the island. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, one of longest running armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries. The Tamil Tigers are headed by their founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their well-developed militia cadre, atrocities against Muslim and Sinhalese civilians, and high profile attacks, such as the assassination of several high ranking Sri Lankan politicians, and the former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. They also have the distinction of introducing suicide bombings as a tactic, and have carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined. The LTTE have repeatedly been accused of recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE are the only rebel organization with aircraft.

In January 2009, Canada and the EU notably refused to take the group off its terrorist list, even while the EU agreed to remove the Mujahideen Organization of Iran. The U.S. has had the Tamil Tigers on its terrorist list since the 1990s.

European states agreed on Monday to remove exiled Iranian opposition group the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) from an EU list of banned terrorist groups, an EU official said.

The official confirmed that EU foreign ministers approved a decision to take it off a list that includes Palestinian Hamas and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The PMOI is the group which exposed Iran’s covert nuclear program in 2002. It began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran and has bases in Iraq.1

Waving today in the march were the flags of the U.S. and Canada, among others.

(link to short video clips of part of the procession)
Tamil Tiger Protest

tamil2

tamil3

tamil4

(Thanks to sanhedrin and waxpoet at Reddit for corrections/suggestions)

  1. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661977,00.html [<]

God Hates Co-Ed Sports (And Women)

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

When I get hyperbolic in my ranting against religion, my tirade doesn’t come close to the atrocity that is the manifestation of religion in reality. When people ask, “What’s the harm in non-extremist religious belief?” I reply with reports like the enforcement of the Iranian law that bans any physical contact between unrelated/unmarried men and women. Case and point, an Iranian Co-Ed soccer game arranged in Tehran last week by the Esteghlal football club (yes, it’s “soccer” football) resulted in the punishment of the managers — because the game was between the men’s youth team and women’s first team. The male manager was suspended for a year and fined 50 million rials ($5,000), and the female team’s woman coach was suspended for six-months and fined 20 million rials ($2,000). 1

Apparently, cellphone camera footage provided sufficient evidence of such a sinful deed. I find it despicable that when something like this happens, nations don’t stand up in protest because religious custom must be respected. The oppression of women by Muslim nations needs to be stopped, whether from the inside or the outside or a combination of efforts. Women are intentionally undereducated, segregated, violated, and otherwise mistreated. It’s not always in Muslim countries, of course. All such behavior worldwide should be targeted for annihilation, and given priority over religious deference and political wars.

(Yes, I know the Iranian football situation is not an example of “violence” against women, but it is a good example of how women are oppressed in all facets of some societies, and how that treatment is justified with religion or other superstition (like genital mutilation justifications, none of which are sufficient for what’s done to the little girls who suffer it) )

Thus, Some links:

NOW and Violence against Women

UNIFEM

Amnesty International

Violence Against Women Online Resources

World Health Organization

Parliamentary Campaign: Stop Violence Against Women

UN: Women and Violence

The position of women in Islamic countries: possibilities, constraints and strategies for change, Report prepared for the Special Programme WID, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), by Sally Baden

Wikipedia: Women in Islam

Human Rights in Arab Countries, by Mitchell G. Bard

Acid Attacks – New York Times(video) (“Westerners associate terrorism in Pakistan with suicide bombers, but an emerging terrorist threat for Pakistani women is acid attacks, often by their own husbands, Nicholas D. Kristof says.”)

State of Protest

  1. Details from The Express (from The Washington Post) as well as The Offside [<]

Woman Jailed Over Scarf, Appropriately?

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

A few months ago, I posted an article criticizing the greatly increasing idea that over-tolerance for religious tradition should trump practical necessity. In particular, I cited a case in which a judge in Britain disallowed a Muslim attorney from advocating in court because her refusal to remove her traditional Muslim head garb made her difficult to understand and ineffective as a counselor. I proffered that it was a reasonable infringement upon “custom,” and that its purpose was not to oppress religious practice, but, instead, to facilitate something necessary, for the sake of society and government effectiveness.

On Tuesday, a judge in Georgia charged a Muslim woman with contempt of court and ordered her jailed for ten days because she refused to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint.1 Although she didn’t serve her full sentence, due to the intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she claims her civil rights had been violated, and she was reminded of the stories she had heard about the civil rights strife in the southern U.S. 2

The incident shouldn’t remind her of such stories. The premise is distinctly different. In the south, black people were segregated and barred from entry from places solely because of the color of their skin. That was the litmus test sufficient to perpetuate that heinous behavior. Lisa Valentine, the alleged victim of the civil rights infringement in this story, however, was not punished arbitrarily for having an attribute that was genetically gifted to her. She was punished for wearing a piece of clothing on her head that she insisted remain on her head, presumably to honor and obey her husband, Islam, and Allah. Her reasoning is irrelevant. The practical nature of the request to have her head scarf removed trumped her religious preference specifically because of the narrow scope of that request — that it was for the purpose of safety and security in a government operated public facility. In short, it’s hard to identify someone on security tape footage if that person’s head is covered.

How do we test this to determine whether Mrs. Valentine was being unjustly singled out for her religion? Walk into a Georgia courthouse wearing a motorcycle helmet, and then refuse to remove it, because, you’ll claim, “It violates my civil rights to have my cherished helmet removed.” For whatever reason you’ve donned such garb, it will be insufficient to override the universally applied restriction. You’d have to take off your helmet. I’d have to take off my baseball cap. It’s the same idea as if someone at an airport refused to succumb to a wand search, or removal of shoes. Regardless of the reason, religious, secular, paranoia, custom — that person would be refused access to the planes, and would likely spend a few hours in interrogation.

So, instead of a passive trait, such as skin color, being the target of hate-filled men with prejudice, where everyone possessing that characteristic would be equally mistreated, this is a case of a choice, an action that the actor tries to justify using religion and culture, being barred in a narrow circumstance, applied only to those who act similarly in that circumstance.

Although there is apparently no state law permitting or prohibiting head scarfs, it’s the discretion of the judge and sheriffs whether to allow or disallow them, and the courthouse security officers enforce that decision. I really would like to see if someone wearing a baseball cap could get through security. If that happened, then it’s obvious that there is a double standard at that courthouse, and Mrs. Valentine’s rights were, indeed, violated.

Despite my overall argument that religious rights should have no extra bonuses over basic civil rights, due process, and free speech, among other things, I must confess that I have serious issues with any decision a judge in the U.S. makes regarding religious tolerance or intolerance when that judge quite likely has on the wall behind him the big, bold words, “In God We Trust.”3

-Procrustes

StOP

  1. Last year, the same judge apparently did the same thing to a different Muslim woman. [<]
  2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/muslim-woman-jailed-over-_n_151858.html [<]
  3. According to Wikipedia, “In God We Trust is found on the flag of Georgia, flag of Florida, and the Seal of Florida. It was first adopted by the state of Georgia for use on flags in 2001, and subsequently included on the Georgia flag of 2003.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust [<]