Take Back Your Country
DENVER (Sept. 17) - Ten Nobel Peace Prize laureates called for world peace and took aim at U.S. policy makers, asking an enthusiastic crowd of 7,000 youth to demand that the United States pull back its military, spread its wealth and offer aid to developing countries.
Only the Dalai Lama, whose speech at the three-day PeaceJam convention at the University of Denver was interrupted when a fire alarm went off, did not take a direct jab at the U.S.
"After the painful events of September 11, I wish that America would have built a school in Afghanistan in the name of every victim," said Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian judge and 2003 Peace Prize recipient. "When someone claims he has a vision from God to bring war to Iraq, this is a kind of terrorism."
The Dalai Lama called on the world to open itself to religious tolerance. Nobel Peace Prize Winners Take Aim at U.S.
I don't know how many Nobel Peace Prize winners are alive today, but this had to be most of them. These aren't some cranky pacifists, this isn't PETA here, or the Earth Liberation Front, every one of these guys has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, each has made a major contribution to solving the world's most difficult problems.
It is impossible for Americans to know how badly their government is behaving in their name. Oh, they sense something is wrong, but the truth is, the noise level isn't any higher now than it was when Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with an intern. In the meantime, we are digging ourselves into a very serious hole morally, economically, diplomatically, militarily -- every way you can think of.
I'll skip down a little.
One after the other Saturday night, the laureates called on Americans to do something about their government's foreign policy. From efforts to close the border with Mexico to Iraq to arms exports, the Nobel laureates had words for the U.S. government.
"Stand up. Take action," said Jody Williams, the 1997 recipient for her work opposing land mines, and the only American to take the stage. "Don't try to bring democracy to people you don't understand through the barrel of a gun and leave them with civil war."
The Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who praised the U.S. for its fight against South Africa's apartheid and its history of justice and democracy, also had stern words for the Bush administration.
"You taught us no government worth its salt can subvert the rule of law. We believed you," he said. "That's part of what you have as a gift for the world. Then how can you commit Guantanamo Bay? Take back your country."
I'm curious, how much time did they give this on CNN today? MSNBC? Fox?
posted by JimK at 7:24 PM
27 Comments:
Thus sayeth Desmond Tutu,
"You taught us no government worth its salt can subvert the rule of law. We believed you," he said. "That's part of what you have as a gift for the world. Then how can you commit Guantanamo Bay? Take back your country."
I just love to read comments that express so clearly the ignorance, abject ignorance I might add, of the speaker. I am certain that if Tutu wanted to KNOW about the situation firsthand, the US military would be glad to show him around Gitmo. Why not, they did for WSJ op-ed editor James Taranto,
http://www.opinionjournal.com/
editorial/feature.html?id=110008952
Yes, it is clear that Desmond Tutu has opinions about how the US is fighting this war, but if he wants to bloviate to a bunch of starry eyed youth, shouldn't he find out firsthand what it is he is talking about?
And then there is Rigoberta Menchu, suspected Communist and proven liar...yes, her autobiography has been documented to contain many tall tales along the lines of a James Frey "memoir" (more like a so-called docu-drama).
Pity that Yasser Arafat could not attend, but alas he has assumed "room temperature".
And Jim writes,
It is impossible for Americans to know how badly their government is behaving in their name.
Because? Please, do tell...oh, yeah, that's right, there is that tall tale by Joseph Wilson, which even the Post now admits is a lie. Imagine that...
Orin,
To get some idea about one of the many ways we have messed up our standing in the world, check out this article from yesterday's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html
Here is the introduction:
******************
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; A01
Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006
After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.
The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.
The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.
Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.
"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings." **************
Later in the article, we discover that Mr. O'Beirne is the husband of conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne. We took a probably impossible situation and made disaster inevitable. It will take a very long time to clean up the mess this Administration has made.
Orin, it is interesting that your response to this story is to make insinuations about the personalities of these people who have received Nobel Peace Prizes. Three of them, in this comment. So do you suppose that the Nobel awards are somehow controlled by The Other Side, so that only the least deserving get them?
And -- please do tell us what "that tall tale by Joseph Wilson" is supposed to be.
JimK
David writes,
Orin,
To get some idea about one of the many ways we have messed up our standing in the world, check out this article from yesterday's Washington Post:
I glanced at the article, and I could not agree more...as a wannabe political hack in 1992 I found no jobs for me because I had no political connections (and I was not willing to work for free). In a perfect world everyone would get their job on merit alone; this is not a perfect world. And don't think for a minute that the most liberal Democrats would not practice the same sort of patronage if they had the political power to do so.
Jim writes,
Orin, it is interesting that your response to this story is to make insinuations about the personalities of these people who have received Nobel Peace Prizes.
"Insinuations"??? Please...I stated that Desmond Tutu is ignorant of the situation at Guantanamo Bay, that is, he has not been there and cannot intelligently comment on the situation. His comments are more a reflection of his political ideology and prejudices, not any firsthand knowledge. Read the piece by Taranto and you will know more than the Reverend...
Three of them, in this comment.
I could've easily added a fourth, Jimmy Carter...
So do you suppose that the Nobel awards are somehow controlled by The Other Side, so that only the least deserving get them?
I lost all respect for the Nobel "Peace" Prize when Arafat received it in 1994. While Rabin and Peres have and, in the case of Peres, still work to assure peace in that region, Arafat was a man who lived and died with blood (literally) dripping from his hands. If that was not bad enough, he was extraordinarily corrupt (even by Middle East standards), funneling much of the money given as foreign aid to his cronies and his shop-a-holic "wife". And what did the man-on-the-street in areas controlled by Arafat get? Table scraps at best...disgusting.
Oh, and in the case of Jimmy Carter, there was a full on PR campaign for him to be given the "Peace" Prize that pre-dated the awared being given. And then when the award was given, it was given not as much as a recognition for any work Carter may have done, but as a rebuke against President George W. Bush and the United States.
That is ok though, because everyone knows that Jimmy Carter was and still remains a (bitter) one-term President...
And -- please do tell us what "that tall tale by Joseph Wilson" is supposed to be.
Mr. Wilson writing in June 2004 that "the conspiracy to destroy us was most likely conceived--and carried out--within the office of the vice president of the United States."
How's that for starters?...frankly, I can't wait for Mr. and Mrs. Wilson's lawsuit to go to trial. The discovery process will be painful for them, and will likely result in the suit either being dismissed or dropped altogether.
And please, do not insult me by pretending Wilson is not a hack for the Democratic Party (he was here in Fort Collins earlier this year at a party fundraiser for the local Democrat seeking to beat Marilyn Musgrave).
Oh, and I did just finish better than half of the Post article recommended by David...yes, I suspect it is all true...and more. Perhaps when the Democrats take back this country in November they can correct all of this, and more.
So, Jim and David, did you read the Taranto piece?
Orin writes:
"I glanced at the article, and I could not agree more...as a wannabe political hack in 1992 I found no jobs for me because I had no political connections (and I was not willing to work for free). In a perfect world everyone would get their job on merit alone; this is not a perfect world. And don't think for a minute that the most liberal Democrats would not practice the same sort of patronage if they had the political power to do so.
****
"Oh, and I did just finish better than half of the Post article recommended by David...yes, I suspect it is all true...and more. Perhaps when the Democrats take back this country in November they can correct all of this, and more.
"So, Jim and David, did you read the Taranto piece?"
I did read it. For me, the issue is not fundamentally how we deal with the particular problems of Gitmo. Had we not frittered away the world-wide goodwill that poured out immediately after 9/11, Gitmo would be nothing more than a minor footnote. In any event, we have violent prisoners in our own prison system, and we still are generally able to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham certainly seem to believe that, and I think they are correct.
With respect to the Post article and your statement that “most liberal Democrats would . . . practice the same sort of patronage” misses what I believe is a fundamental difference between the political parties. In a macro sense (there are always exceptions), the Democrats are a party of governance. Consequently, particularly on important matters, they want to make certain that government actually works. The idea that had the Clinton Administration stumbled into the circumstances Bush II brought us into, that Clinton people would have peopled the CPA with inexperienced and unqualified interns from Americans for Democratic Action, rather than drawing on the best qualified people available, is absurd, given the evidence. Look at FEMA under the Clinton Administration and its FEMA director, James Lee Witt. Moreover, Democrats, historically, have brought qualified Republicans into high foreign policy and defense positions and consultations, going all the way back to Secretary of War Stimson during World War II, Senator Vandenberg during the Marshall Plan era, and extending to, for example, Senator William Cohen as Secretary of Defense. (Sometimes that is not necessarily a good idea. Secretary of Defense McNamara was a Republican.)
The Republican Party at the national level, particuarly in recent years, has become the party of anti-government. I had thought that that approach would not translate into simply disregarding competence and experience in matters of governance. The Bush I Administration cared about competence and experience in most important positions (FEMA excepted, sadly). How Bush II could have disregarded simple competence (and not just in the national defense area – see FEMA) is a measure of just how disastrous that administration has been.
Equally disturbing was (and is) the visceral mistrust of anyone or any view that is associated with the Clinton Administration. That view led the Bush II Administration to blow off Clinton’s January 2001 warnings about Al Qaeda.
David writes,
I did read it. For me, the issue is not fundamentally how we deal with the particular problems of Gitmo. Had we not frittered away the world-wide goodwill that poured out immediately after 9/11, Gitmo would be nothing more than a minor footnote.
That comment is almost as naive as are those that continue to believe that Islam (as practiced by those most visible) is a religion of peace. Certainly we have the Pope to thank for smoking out the true face of Islam. It is violent, despotic, murderous and barbaric.
Oh, and the "world-wide goodwill"? Get real...it lasted, at best, until the day the United States declared war on Afghanistan when they would not turn over Osama bin Laden et al. And as you might have already figured out, I care very little about "international good will" towards the United States, with the possible exception of England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico.
And lest anyone forget, on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those peace loving Palestinians were celebrating until it got back to them that their celebrating (handing out candy to children) on one of the US's darkest days was being broadcast all over the world. Can anyone say Opps?
In any event, we have violent prisoners in our own prison system, and we still are generally able to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
David, I guess you have not heard of the rampant problem of prison rape in US prisons...it is so bad that it has caught the attention of Amnesty International. The detainees, by way of contrast, live in the lap of luxary (though this depends upon whether they can follow the rules of their detention).
Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham certainly seem to believe that, and I think they are correct.
With all due respect to Warner, McCain and Graham, they are not the Chief Executive, or the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces; they are to put it bluntly, members of a Committee of One Hundred. Read the Federalist Papers on the executive branch. There is a reason that the power to direct the machinery of war is vested in one person, and not a hundred. Congress has done its job; now they should allow the President to do his.
I know this...none of those three will ever get my vote, or anyone else I can influence.
and the dems will louse once again why. republicans at lest do not side with the enimey.
Orin said, "Certainly we have the Pope to thank for smoking out the true face of Islam. It is violent, despotic, murderous and barbaric."
The Pope said, "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm
freeSpeech: Irshad Manji
"Best-Selling Muslim Author Says Pope Was Calling For A Dialogue With The Muslim World
Sept. 18, 2006
Quote
Even if someone mocks your religion, the Quran says, walk away. Later, engage in dialogue. Wasn't that the pope's point?
(CBS) As a faithful Muslim, I do not believe the pope should have apologized. I've read what’s been described as his inflammatory speech. Actually, he called for dialogue with the Muslim world. To ignore that larger context and to focus on a mere few words of the speech is like reducing the Koran, Islam's holy book, to its most bloodthirsty passages. We Muslims hate it when people do that. The hypocrisy of doing this to the pope stinks to high heaven.
Yet some Muslims have gone further. In the West Bank, churches have been firebombed. During a big protest in London, placards proclaimed "Islam will take Rome." In Somalia, a Catholic nun was murdered shortly after a Muslim cleric urged violence against the Vatican.
Coincidence? I think not.
And thinking is what the Quran encourages. It asks Muslims to reflect far more than to retaliate. Even if someone mocks your religion, the Koran says, walk away. Later, engage in dialogue. Wasn't that the pope's point?
We Muslims should remember that
God told the Prophet Muhammad to "read." My advice to fellow Muslims: Read the pope's speech — in its entirety — and you'll see that his message of reason, reconciliation, and conversation would make him a better Muslim than most of us.
Now if only I could make him a feminist ..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/freespeech/main2017202.shtml
I'd like to thank the Pope for smoking out the thoughtless arrogance of people who do not exhibit mutual respect for other faiths. They can't respect other faiths even with the Pope showing them the way.
"I'm curious, how much time did they give this on CNN today? MSNBC? Fox?"
Probably about as much time as it deserved.
I'm curious, do any of these peace experts think the Taliban or Saddam Hussein would ever have lost power without the intervention of the U.S. military? Does they notice how the U.S. military has spent billions trying to build an Iraqi infrastructure only to have it targeted by a vicious minority which wants to regain control and supress the populace? How the U.S. was attacked by a terrorist organization who said our crime was to be present in Saudi Arabia? How we dismantled training camps for terrorists in Afghanistan who meant to spread their philosophy worldwide through...violence?
Why does anyone think the failure to resist evil will bring peace? Thousands of years of human history and it never has.
Anon, I don't think the Taliban is doing badly at this time, except in Kabul, and I don't think anybody in America ever really cared if Saddam Hussein was in power or not. I certainly never lost any sleep over him. At least his country was peaceful, and things worked. If the world decided to try him for crimes in the eighties, there are ways to arrest people without murdering tens of thousands of innocent people in the process.
And those billions "trying to build an Iraqi infrastructure" -- you don't believe that, do you/ You're paying a billion dollars a week to defense contractors, but they're not building anything. Sheesh. What do you think? As far as I can tell, this is the only explanation for this war that holds up -- we're doing it so friends of the administration can get filthy rich at the expense of taxpayers.
Evil needs to be resisted, yes, but by something that is not itself evil.
JimK
"Anon, I don't think the Taliban is doing badly at this time, except in Kabul,"
Well, they are.
"and I don't think anybody in America ever really cared if Saddam Hussein was in power or not."
Bill Clinton, among others, seemed to. He bombed Iraq for weeks.
"I certainly never lost any sleep over him. At least his country was peaceful, and things worked."
Peaceful? He twice invaded his neighbors without pretext. You couldn't really the internal situation peace either unless you weren't a Kurd or Shiite or you didn't like any free speech or right to liberty. Try pursuit of happiness with his creepy sons roaming the countryside raping virgins and torturing soccer players.
As for working, the current Iraqi government could get it going too if they were willing to use Hussein's tactics.
"If the world decided to try him for crimes in the eighties, there are ways to arrest people without murdering tens of thousands of innocent people in the process."
Really. How? We couldn't even get him to let inspectors in.
Who did we murder, BTW?
"And those billions "trying to build an Iraqi infrastructure" -- you don't believe that, do you/ You're paying a billion dollars a week to defense contractors, but they're not building anything. Sheesh. What do you think? As far as I can tell, this is the only explanation for this war that holds up -- we're doing it so friends of the administration can get filthy rich at the expense of taxpayers."
Sounds like our health system.
"Evil needs to be resisted, yes, but by something that is not itself evil."
Not all use of force is evil. Gandhi, MLK and Henry David Thoreau wouldn't have lasted a day in Baghdad if they had anything negative to say about Hussein.
As for working, the current Iraqi government could get it going too if they were willing to use Hussein's tactics.
You said it, not me.
raping virgins???
Who did we murder, BTW?
Well, start with Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Then we can inventory the residents of Fallujah, the list in Haditha, victims in Abu Ghraib ... c'mon, why are you even asking this question?
JimK
"As for working, the current Iraqi government could get it going too if they were willing to use Hussein's tactics.
You said it, not me."
Yes, I did. The current government is superior to Hussein.
"raping virgins???"
Crimes happen in every society. Difference is, in Hussein's society there was no justice for the victims of the Impunity Gang.
"Who did we murder, BTW?
Well, start with Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Then we can inventory the residents of Fallujah, the list in Haditha, victims in Abu Ghraib ... c'mon, why are you even asking this question"
Let's go through them one by one and discuss. Ready?
A Peace Prize winner missing was Aung San Suu Kyi- still under house arrest in Burma. I don't know that she would have been there but I don't like people to forget her and the suffering of her people. (this is where Wyatt likes to insult me-as he doesn't stand up for anything or anyone)
Orin, I assume Arafat is somewhat colder than room temperature now. 6 feet under usually is.
Andrea Kline
Excerpt from Bush's speech at the UN today:
"My country desires peace," Bush told world leaders in the cavernous main hall at the U.N. "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."
Egad! Bush respects a religion some call "violent, despotic, murderous and barbaric!"
And how much "firsthand" knowledge of Gitmo does Bush himself possess? NONE!
Orin,
If you go back and look at the news articles when we went into Afghanistan, I think you will discover that, at that point, most of the world was completely with us. Heck, we were even sending alleged terrorists to Syria to do our “interrogating” for us.
The record is clear that our goodwill dissipated when we decided to go head-long into an invasion of a country whose government had nothing to do with 9/11. (Of course there were some who applauded 9/11, but they were infinitely smaller in number than the number of people around the world who think we have gone nuts.)
As for the Pope’s statement, I find all the hypocrisy (or lack of self-consciousness) amusing. Yes, it is bizarre to see Moslems who are insulted by statements that Islam is a violent religion show their outrage by being violent. On the other hand, any statement by the leader of Western Christendom about violent origins of the spread of Islam must also recognize that, sadly, Christianity, too, was often spread by the sword – and often at the expense of Moslems.
The fact of the matter is that all European and Middle Eastern religions have violent pasts; but they also have huge humanitarian traditions. We would all do well to recognize the violence that has beset all western and middle eastern religious traditions and work to put those in our past, keeping only the traditions that deal with love and peace. Not an easy task, but let’s not get too self-righteous here about our own religions' past.
As for prison violence, we certainly have a problem in American prisons – but, for the most part, the problem is violence among prisoners, not violence perpetrated by government officials on prisoners. The point of Taranto’s piece was that the prisoners at Gitmo are so violent against their jailers that torture is warranted as a matter of prison control. We don’t have to do that in the United States (with many prisoners just as crazy as those at Gitmo).
Finally, with respect to Warner, McCain, and Graham, I would think you would at least want to give them a respectful hearing – particularly since their views reflect the publically stated views of the uniformed military lawyers. Unless you believe that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief are absolutely limitless AND you further believe that this President’s judgment is unerring, you should listen long and hard before condemning these senators who have more military experience than anyone in the White House inner circle.
"The record is clear that our goodwill dissipated when we decided to go head-long into an invasion of a country whose government had nothing to do with 9/11."
Uh, David, Iraq was the basic cause of 9/11. You probably have forgotten that Iraq invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. Kuwait and its neighbor, Saudi Arabia, two of our allies (ha-ha) in the region, asked us to repel the aggression. We agreed, being the only party capable of correcting this illegal assault. As part of the the rescue, it became necessary, with Saudi permission to establish a military base on the Arabian peninsula.
Uh, I'll finish this later.
(Of course there were some who applauded 9/11, but they were infinitely smaller in number than the number of people around the world who think we have gone nuts.)
As for the Pope’s statement, I find all the hypocrisy (or lack of self-consciousness) amusing. Yes, it is bizarre to see Moslems who are insulted by statements that Islam is a violent religion show their outrage by being violent. On the other hand, any statement by the leader of Western Christendom about violent origins of the spread of Islam must also recognize that, sadly, Christianity, too, was often spread by the sword – and often at the expense of Moslems.
"The record is clear that our goodwill dissipated when we decided to go head-long into an invasion of a country whose government had nothing to do with 9/11."
Uh, David, Iraq was the basic cause of 9/11. You probably have forgotten that Iraq invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. Kuwait and its neighbor, Saudi Arabia, two of our allies (ha-ha) in the region, asked us to repel the aggression. We agreed, being the only party capable of correcting this illegal assault. As part of the rescue, it became necessary, with Saudi permission to establish a military base on the Arabian peninsula. Because of Hussein's continuing threats to Iraqis and surrounding countries, we were asked to stay. Al quaeda, taking what it believed was a command from the Koran, said infidels must be driven from their holy land, the Kingdom containing Mecca and Medina. This was the rationale for attacking America. So you see, this entire chain of events was set into motion by a deranged power-hungry despot called Saddam Hussein. Far from being a minor threat, he had a key role in the downward spiral of chaos the world is descending into. This guy who used chemical weapons on Iranians after invading Iran and rained missiles on Israel to try to provoke a pan-Arab war- one can only wonder what he'd have done without our restraint.
"As for the Pope’s statement, I find all the hypocrisy (or lack of self-consciousness) amusing. Yes, it is bizarre to see Moslems who are insulted by statements that Islam is a violent religion show their outrage by being violent."
Not to mention the daily insults spouted by Muslim clerics against Jews and Christian, none of which has provoked riots and bombings.
"On the other hand, any statement by the leader of Western Christendom about violent origins of the spread of Islam must also recognize that, sadly, Christianity, too, was often spread by the sword – and often at the expense of Moslems."
The problem is though, David, that Christians who spread the gospel by violence were clearly not following their own scriptures. This is not so clear in Islam. I've talked to Christian converts from Islam who say that the verses in the Koran which support freedom of thought and conscience were from an earlier period of Mohammed's life and toward the end, the verses become less and less tolerant. In recent days, I've heard some Muslim commentators disputing this. I don't know which is true but is it possible that the most fundamental form of Islam is tolerant while the most fundamental form of Christianity is tolerant? I'd like to believe that all religions would rely only on moral suasion and reason at their most basic level and that other faiths would desire peaceful co-existence. It would be a lot easier to believe this if Muslim clerics worldwide were right now denouncing the violent reactions to the Pope's comments.
David writes,
As for the Pope’s statement, I find all the hypocrisy (or lack of self-consciousness) amusing.
And what of the murder of a nun, living out a life with a vow of poverty and selfless service? Do you find that amusing as well?
Keep in mind that hypocrisy is the price one pays for actually having standards, something contemporary American liberalism dispises.
Yes, it is bizarre to see Moslems who are insulted by statements that Islam is a violent religion show their outrage by being violent.
This comment suggests to me that you have not read Pope Benedict XVI's remarks; I have read better than half (only to be sidetracked by class) and his speech/lecture was among one of the most intelligent I have ever read on the role of reason in religion. What struck me were his criticisms of western Christianity...
And check out what Sam Harris has to say about all of this here,
http://www.latimes.com/
news/opinion/la-oe-harris 18sep18,0,1897169.story
On the other hand, any statement by the leader of Western Christendom about violent origins of the spread of Islam must also recognize that, sadly, Christianity, too, was often spread by the sword – and often at the expense of Moslems.
When was the last time this happened?...come now, don't be shy...give us all a date when this last happened. Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, apologized. Now it is time to ask: Will the other side (you know, folks like yourself) accept the apology given...or will you all keeping harping about the sins of Christianity past?
Frankly I think it is a vain and futile effort to attempt to apologize to TTF'ers like yourself. Benedict to you all represents the repressive norms of Christianity, always putting the kibosh on the "right" to copulate anywhere with anyone (it is all socially constructed anyhow, so male, female, or maybe to spice things up, a little of each...what difference does it make since love conquers all?) for any reason (though preferably for non-procreative reasons).
The fact of the matter is that all European and Middle Eastern religions have violent pasts; but they also have huge humanitarian traditions.
Yes, yes, yes...the operative word here, and you do use the word, is PASTS. WHAT ABOUT THE PRESENT?
We would all do well to recognize the violence that has beset all western and middle eastern religious traditions and work to put those in our past, keeping only the traditions that deal with love and peace.
Sorry, but I am going to decline your invitation to engage in moral equivalency.
Not an easy task, but let’s not get too self-righteous here about our own religions' past.
Actually such a task as you describe is all too easy...
Orin,
Could you post a link for the Pope's entire address? I would be interested in reading it.
Of course I do not find the murder of the Somali nun amusing. That kind of comment should be beneath you.
I agree that Christianity has been much better behaved in recent times. Still, there is a mind-set out there. Was Ann Coulter really joking when she said after 9/11 that we should invade Arab countries and convert them to Christianity? An American example that immediately comes to mind is President McKinley's rationale for conquering the Philippines in 1898. He told people that he felt a responsibility to convert the inhabitants to Christianity (being ignorant of the fact that the Spanish had converted most of the inhabitants centuries before).
Finally, your comment about "moral equivalency" is another red herring. Recognizing the shortcomings of a variety of cultures does not mean that one must view all as equally culpable -- I certainly do not, and neither does anyone I know. The "moral equivalency" tag is just another attempt to employ slogans and invective instead of analysis.
"Finally, your comment about "moral equivalency" is another red herring. Recognizing the shortcomings of a variety of cultures does not mean that one must view all as equally culpable -- I certainly do not, and neither does anyone I know. The "moral equivalency" tag is just another attempt to employ slogans and invective instead of analysis."
Just to clarify, David. DO you think any societies are better than others or do you think they are all roughly morally equivalent.
My answer is pretty clear. But since you seem unwilling to accept it, here it is in greater specificity:
From my point of view, I certainly believe that some societies are far more moral than others.
I believe that societies that do not discriminate against women, homosexuals, and religious minorities are more moral than those that do so discriminate.
I believe that societies that succeed in fostering equal economic opportunity are more moral than those that do not.
I believe that societies that take care of their most vulnerable people are more moral than those that do not.
I believe that societies that put the common good above individual greed are more moral than those that do not.
I believe that societies that respect individual freedom are more moral than those that would restrict it in the name of theological or similar orthodoxy.
I believe that societies that seek to protect the environment so that future generations will be able to live well in this world are more moral than those that would ignore environmental dangers in the name of short-term pleasure.
For those reasons, American society was far more moral than Soviet society or apartheid-era South African society. American society is far more moral than Saudi Arabian or Iranian or Chinese society. But we can be a lot more moral than we are.
Sorry if this answer disappoints you, since you so desparately want to label people who disagree with you with the "moral equivalence" tag.
David writes,
Could you post a link for the Pope's entire address? I would be interested in reading it.
You bet...here is the URL,
http://zenit.org/english/
visualizza.phtml?sid=94748
David writes,
Of course I do not find the murder of the Somali nun amusing. That kind of comment should be beneath you.
You are correct...that was a cheap shot...sorry.
Still David, you wrote previously,
As for the Pope’s statement, I find all the hypocrisy (or lack of self-consciousness) amusing.
First off...trust me, Pope Benedict is aware of that part of Catholic history that is ignoble. When you read his speech, it will be clear that his criticism is not just of Islam, but of any revealed religion that untethers itself from reason. I think one of the most morally odious examples we have in the United States of this phenomenon is that of the "Rev." Fred Phelps.
Yes, it is bizarre to see Moslems who are insulted by statements that Islam is a violent religion show their outrage by being violent.
"Bizarre"??? Is that the way you characterize a group of religious followers that have over the years acted in a rather consistent and predictable manner? There are adjectives to describe such behavior, but I am not sure I "bizarre" would be one of them.
On the other hand,
Moral Equivalency Alert!!!
any statement by the leader of Western Christendom about violent origins of the spread of Islam must also recognize that, sadly, Christianity, too, was often spread by the sword – and often at the expense of Moslems.
And then you reply,
Finally, your comment about "moral equivalency" is another red herring. Recognizing the shortcomings of a variety of cultures does not mean that one must view all as equally culpable -- I certainly do not, and neither does anyone I know. The "moral equivalency" tag is just another attempt to employ slogans and invective instead of analysis.
No, it is not any sort of herring, red or otherwise, to point out that you are engaging in moral equivalency and here is why:
Both Christianity and Islam have indisputably had violent pasts, and there is no ignoring this fact.
However, Christianity (esp. Catholicism), quite unlike Islam, has been able to transcend its own past. Therein is the difference.
The fact of the matter is that all European and Middle Eastern religions have violent pasts; but they also have huge humanitarian traditions.
Yes, yes, yes..."violent pasts"...what about the present? Jews? Well, even a casual read of the Hebrew Bible would make it clear that they sure had a violent past. And Christianity? Well, there is no disputing the violent past of Christianity as well. And Islam? Well, there again the answer is obvious...a violent past.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PRESENT??? We all by necessity live in the present. At present, and in the present, the religion of the Jews and Christians is (by and large) peaceful, and this makes these two belief systems morally superior to that of Islam.
And finally, David writes, responding to Anonymous,
But we can be a lot more moral than we are.
Well, of course, but your litany of "I believe" statements is clearly intended to undercut any basis for affirming that the US is better than Afghanistan, a country where a man can (and was) killed for insisting that girls have an opportunity to an education.
Sorry if this answer disappoints you, since you so desparately want to label people who disagree with you with the "moral equivalence" tag.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me...in fact if there is anything that swells up my civic pride it is the expression of dissenting viewpoints. One of my favorite political movies of all time is "Bob Roberts", a movie that depicts right-wing conservatives in a very unflattering way (the best parts in the movie belong to Gore Vidal...brilliant!). So, I have no problem with disagreement per se; it is the "On the other hand" language, clearly intended to distract from and undercut the clear moral supremacy of the West over that of present day Islam in so many parts of the world.
If Left-wing writer Christopher Hitchens can understand the moral difference between the West (and that does not mean he is any sort of fan of the Catholic Church; just read his book on Mother Theresa, "The Missionary Position"...ouch!) and Islam, as he does here,
http://www.npr.org/templates/
story/story.php?storyId=5498172
"We now know we're at war today and so do they and they will pay and pay and pay for it," Hitchens says of proponents of what he calls nihilistic Islamism. "They will rue the day when they decided to challenge civilization and democracy and attempt to replace it with theocracy and barbarism."
then surely David, you can as well. I invite you to do so.
"For those reasons, American society was far more moral than Soviet society or apartheid-era South African society. American society is far more moral than Saudi Arabian or Iranian or Chinese society. But we can be a lot more moral than we are.
Sorry if this answer disappoints you, since you so desparately want to label people who disagree with you with the "moral equivalence" tag."
Not disappointed- or surprised. Thanks for the response.
How do you think we compare with Western Europe?
(warning: after you answer, I'm going to post a quote from Oriana Fallaci, who died last week)
Orin,
I don't how much clearer I can make my view about "moral equivalency." I just said I do not see moral equivalency between the United States and particular Islamic regimes. I do think that we have fallen into a trap Bin Laden laid for us by invading Iraq, but that is a different issue.
Anon,
Oriana Fallaci was an interesting character, but was not the voice of all Western Europe.
At the moment, and in many respects, countries in Western Europe are doing a better job than the United States. We should compete with them to do better. If we do, we all will be better off on both sides of the Atlantic.
I just read the translation Orin provided of the Pope's now-controversial speech on Sept. 12.
It is very interesting, and takes me back to my days of taking philosophy classes in college.
For this conversation, however, what strikes me most is that the quotation that was seized upon was not at all essential to the theme of his discussion, which is the question of whether God is reasonable (the Pope's position) or whether God may well be unreasonable and that (in the Pope's view of the other side of the argument) God is God whether reasonable or not.
His choice of quotation as a jumping off place for this discussion (in which he spends as much or more time talking about disagreements among some Christians than disagreements between some Christians and some Moslems) is what created the controversey. The violent reactions are far, far worse than the questionable judgment of the Pope in using the particular quotation.
But I wonder how tone deaf he is to a large part of the world in choosing to use that particular quotation.
David writes,
I don't how much clearer I can make my view about "moral equivalency." I just said I do not see moral equivalency between the United States and particular Islamic regimes.
Fair enough...thanks.
I do think that we have fallen into a trap Bin Laden laid for us by invading Iraq, but that is a different issue.
Please do not be surprised when I say this...I think we may very well have been out foxed by bin Laden on this account. He certainly had to know the political terrain of Iraq better than just about anyone.
Again David,
I just read the translation Orin provided of the Pope's now-controversial speech on Sept. 12.
It is very interesting, and takes me back to my days of taking philosophy classes in college.
Interestingly enough, it had that same sort of feeling...like I was back in one of my political theory classes.
For this conversation, however, what strikes me most is that the quotation that was seized upon was not at all essential to the theme of his discussion,
Exactly! And the offending section was torn from the context of his speech, giving the impression that he was singling out Islam, rather than including Judaism and Christianity.
which is the question of whether God is reasonable (the Pope's position) or whether God may well be unreasonable and that (in the Pope's view of the other side of the argument) God is God whether reasonable or not.
And the warning to those that would de-Hellenize Christianity...
His choice of quotation as a jumping off place for this discussion (in which he spends as much or more time talking about disagreements among some Christians than disagreements between some Christians and some Moslems) is what created the controversey. The violent reactions are far, far worse than the questionable judgment of the Pope in using the particular quotation.
Questionable judgment is one possibility...could another be that he simply does not have the finely tuned political instincts that JPII had?
But I wonder how tone deaf he is to a large part of the world in choosing to use that particular quotation.
Well, that could be...but could it be that he simply forgot that he is no longer a member of Academia, and now is a world leader, whose very words can cause lives to hang in the balance? Keep in mind that his background is in the university after all...
Bottomline? He will be weighing his words with greater caution in the future.
P.S. Here is another analysis of Benedict's speech,
http://www.firstthings.com/
onthesquare/?p=470
Post a Comment
<< Home