A Catholic website for the modern reader
International
The Quandary of Strange Bedfellows
01/09/13 13:11
Although launching cruise missiles into Syria will not likely lead to all-out war, President Obama has correctly decided to seek Congressional approval before undertaking such action. There is, however, a caveat. And we should not confuse the issues.
Seeking the approval of Congress is in keeping with the War Powers Resolution of 1973—legislation specifically designed to keep military intervention in check. It was precipitated by the actions of President Nixon during the Vietnam War. Although Congress overrode Nixon’s veto of the legislation, thus making it law, there are legitimate questions as to the constitutionality of the Resolution. Nonetheless, that is not really the issue.
Secretary of State, John Kerry, used forceful but accurate language to condemn the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against its own civilians. That same language would be justifiable regardless of who the victims were. But…
Truth and trust are preciously rare commodities these days. Thanks to President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the failures of the intelligence community regarding Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, many people are demanding more evidence before accepting the judgment against Syrian President Assad.
Also, and more to the point, the people of the United States are tired of war. And it does not matter whether we have a Democratic or Republican president. The people want to have a voice when it comes to military action abroad.
One might be tempted to argue that the people’s will is articulated by its representatives in Congress. However, at least in the House of Representatives, that is no longer the case. The present House simply does not represent the majority of the people. By every statistical analysis, it represents an ever-shrinking and extreme minority, the result of ideological gerrymandering. And yet, there’s no place else to turn.
Like many others, I trust, or at least want to trust, President Obama. I do not trust the House of Representatives, and I am ambivalent about the Senate. But I am also realistic enough to recognize that we have not yet emerged from the moral bankruptcy of the Bush Administration.
If the allegations against Assad’s government are true, the international community must respond. This is not merely a question of how history will judge us, nor can it be reduced to a measure of our war-weariness. If the world is to escape the ever-tightening grip of violence and death, there must be limits to how we resolve conflicts. To paraphrase President Obama, there are lines no one can cross. But how to respond? Thus, the truism about politics and religion.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (boldprogressives.org) is a prime example. This organization has fought against the House of Representatives’ attempts to dismantle the U.S. Government and its cold disregard for the common good. On more than one occasion it has sounded the alarm about the Tea Party’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, and it has documented the House’ failure to represent the majority of Americans. Today it has stated its support of President Obama’s decision to consult Congress over a response to Syria. It has, however, let the bedfellow syndrome cloud its language. PCCC’s Sunday email reads:
“Yesterday, the president made the right decision by asking the people's representatives in Congress to vote on whether our nation uses military action in Syria.”
Regardless of how one views the War Powers Resolution; regardless of one’s attitude toward war in general; regardless of one’s fatigue after more than a decade at war, Obama’s decision may, indeed, be the right one. The American people should at least have a voice in this and future military actions. But let us not conclude that the present House is the “people’s representatives”. It is not.
I applaud President Obama’s decision to consult Congress. But make no mistake. For anyone interested in “truth, justice and the American way,” getting in bed with the current House of Representatives is not good politics.
Seeking the approval of Congress is in keeping with the War Powers Resolution of 1973—legislation specifically designed to keep military intervention in check. It was precipitated by the actions of President Nixon during the Vietnam War. Although Congress overrode Nixon’s veto of the legislation, thus making it law, there are legitimate questions as to the constitutionality of the Resolution. Nonetheless, that is not really the issue.
Secretary of State, John Kerry, used forceful but accurate language to condemn the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against its own civilians. That same language would be justifiable regardless of who the victims were. But…
Truth and trust are preciously rare commodities these days. Thanks to President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the failures of the intelligence community regarding Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, many people are demanding more evidence before accepting the judgment against Syrian President Assad.
Also, and more to the point, the people of the United States are tired of war. And it does not matter whether we have a Democratic or Republican president. The people want to have a voice when it comes to military action abroad.
One might be tempted to argue that the people’s will is articulated by its representatives in Congress. However, at least in the House of Representatives, that is no longer the case. The present House simply does not represent the majority of the people. By every statistical analysis, it represents an ever-shrinking and extreme minority, the result of ideological gerrymandering. And yet, there’s no place else to turn.
Like many others, I trust, or at least want to trust, President Obama. I do not trust the House of Representatives, and I am ambivalent about the Senate. But I am also realistic enough to recognize that we have not yet emerged from the moral bankruptcy of the Bush Administration.
If the allegations against Assad’s government are true, the international community must respond. This is not merely a question of how history will judge us, nor can it be reduced to a measure of our war-weariness. If the world is to escape the ever-tightening grip of violence and death, there must be limits to how we resolve conflicts. To paraphrase President Obama, there are lines no one can cross. But how to respond? Thus, the truism about politics and religion.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (boldprogressives.org) is a prime example. This organization has fought against the House of Representatives’ attempts to dismantle the U.S. Government and its cold disregard for the common good. On more than one occasion it has sounded the alarm about the Tea Party’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, and it has documented the House’ failure to represent the majority of Americans. Today it has stated its support of President Obama’s decision to consult Congress over a response to Syria. It has, however, let the bedfellow syndrome cloud its language. PCCC’s Sunday email reads:
“Yesterday, the president made the right decision by asking the people's representatives in Congress to vote on whether our nation uses military action in Syria.”
Regardless of how one views the War Powers Resolution; regardless of one’s attitude toward war in general; regardless of one’s fatigue after more than a decade at war, Obama’s decision may, indeed, be the right one. The American people should at least have a voice in this and future military actions. But let us not conclude that the present House is the “people’s representatives”. It is not.
I applaud President Obama’s decision to consult Congress. But make no mistake. For anyone interested in “truth, justice and the American way,” getting in bed with the current House of Representatives is not good politics.
The Death of Bin Laden—A Second Look
02/05/11 19:25
There is, of course, no picture of Osama Bin Laden in this blog. It would serve no purpose other than to further agitate the distorted intellects of conspiracy theorists who are already frenetically claiming Bin Laden’s death is a hoax. Still, if a picture paints a thousand words, then moving pictures sketch a dictionary. While photographs possess the power to entrance, often leaving us wanting more, moving pictures transport us to the very heart of action itself, exhausting and exciting our emotions whether for good or for ill.
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, people all over the world were stunned and alarmed. Not only did we watch in horror while planes flew into the Twin Towers, we were also dismayed at the level of destruction as the towers collapsed with mini mushroom clouds vainly attempting to shroud the ruin. To make matters worse, the world was subjected to videos of cheering crowds dancing and celebrating these unprovoked acts of death and destruction.
For almost ten years Osama Bin Laden, the founder and leader of al-Qaeda, had eluded the combined efforts of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence organizations. Though he never faded from memory, most people had understandably begun to wonder if he would ever be caught, if justice would forever be denied.
Then, on Sunday night, May 1st, President Obama announced a successful intelligence operation that ended with the death of Bin Laden. The President delivered the announcement with cultured elegance. It is difficult to imagine the emotions he must have been feeling. There appeared to have been excitement in his eyes—resulting as much from the magnitude and impact of his speech as from any possible joy or satisfaction. Obama pronounced a verdict of justice with sedate solemnity, and his words were filled with gravitas as he reaffirmed the perilous milieu of terror that still grips our world. Through it all, Obama was profoundly presidential and resolutely restrained.
Contrast the President’s demeanor with the throngs that gathered outside the White House, in New York City and elsewhere—chanting masses that seem so eerily similar to the cheering crowds of 9/11. It is tempting to dismiss this reaction as Schadenfreude. The truth is more sinister and therefore more difficult to correct.
Certainly there is a mix of emotions welling from within, most uniquely from within the hearts of those who have lost family and friends to the violence of al-Qaeda. From those whose loved ones have been ripped from life, we expect to find relief, gratitude, closure, perhaps even some sense of peace. No one can sit in judgment on how any individual who has suffered such tragedy should feel or react. Indeed, there probably is no “should”.
At the same time, a desire for understanding and compassion must not deter anyone from probing deeper questions of response. Specifically, what is an appropriate collective reaction when a perpetrator of mass violence ends up the prey of violence, himself? There is simply no triumph or honor in the ability to kill. That was what Bin Laden stood for; it cannot define us, also. There is something terribly obscene about watching people celebrate any death, even the demise of Osama Bin Laden.
Whether in the Middle East or in the United States, such assemblies demonstrate a depraved indifference to life and exhibit a duplicity that is beyond the pale of reason. If all human life is of value, then every human life is of value. For believers there is also a religious component. After all, even the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world are created in the image of God. Although they betray that image by acts of violence, we also betray that image--and our faith--by celebrating their executions.
In the United States today, perhaps in every country, we cry out for leaders, for men and women to serve as examples the rest of us can admire and emulate. It was evident on Sunday that we have at least one politician who understands what it means to lead and to inspire. President Obama did not taunt the enemy in his Sunday address. He spoke with candor about justice, but his words did not evoke revenge.
Public displays of emotion, even those that originate from conflict, are not inherently perverse. Innumerable photos and newsreels abound of citizens from various countries celebrating the end of World War I & World War II. In those pictures we see men and women rejoicing, not because someone has died, but because the specter of violence has ended. They celebrate in the hope that perhaps no one else will have to die by bloodshed. They celebrate a peace that was won with incredible sacrifice.
While that hope certainly surfaces with the death of Bin Laden, the mobs we have seen in the streets of America are not celebrating peace. As the president stated, the fight against terror goes on. No, the mobs are celebrating violence itself, and that kind of rejoicing debases us all. However difficult it may be, we must reach deep within ourselves to embrace the more courageous and truer principles of peace. We must be better than Osama Bin Laden was.
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, people all over the world were stunned and alarmed. Not only did we watch in horror while planes flew into the Twin Towers, we were also dismayed at the level of destruction as the towers collapsed with mini mushroom clouds vainly attempting to shroud the ruin. To make matters worse, the world was subjected to videos of cheering crowds dancing and celebrating these unprovoked acts of death and destruction.
For almost ten years Osama Bin Laden, the founder and leader of al-Qaeda, had eluded the combined efforts of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence organizations. Though he never faded from memory, most people had understandably begun to wonder if he would ever be caught, if justice would forever be denied.
Then, on Sunday night, May 1st, President Obama announced a successful intelligence operation that ended with the death of Bin Laden. The President delivered the announcement with cultured elegance. It is difficult to imagine the emotions he must have been feeling. There appeared to have been excitement in his eyes—resulting as much from the magnitude and impact of his speech as from any possible joy or satisfaction. Obama pronounced a verdict of justice with sedate solemnity, and his words were filled with gravitas as he reaffirmed the perilous milieu of terror that still grips our world. Through it all, Obama was profoundly presidential and resolutely restrained.
Contrast the President’s demeanor with the throngs that gathered outside the White House, in New York City and elsewhere—chanting masses that seem so eerily similar to the cheering crowds of 9/11. It is tempting to dismiss this reaction as Schadenfreude. The truth is more sinister and therefore more difficult to correct.
Certainly there is a mix of emotions welling from within, most uniquely from within the hearts of those who have lost family and friends to the violence of al-Qaeda. From those whose loved ones have been ripped from life, we expect to find relief, gratitude, closure, perhaps even some sense of peace. No one can sit in judgment on how any individual who has suffered such tragedy should feel or react. Indeed, there probably is no “should”.
At the same time, a desire for understanding and compassion must not deter anyone from probing deeper questions of response. Specifically, what is an appropriate collective reaction when a perpetrator of mass violence ends up the prey of violence, himself? There is simply no triumph or honor in the ability to kill. That was what Bin Laden stood for; it cannot define us, also. There is something terribly obscene about watching people celebrate any death, even the demise of Osama Bin Laden.
Whether in the Middle East or in the United States, such assemblies demonstrate a depraved indifference to life and exhibit a duplicity that is beyond the pale of reason. If all human life is of value, then every human life is of value. For believers there is also a religious component. After all, even the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world are created in the image of God. Although they betray that image by acts of violence, we also betray that image--and our faith--by celebrating their executions.
In the United States today, perhaps in every country, we cry out for leaders, for men and women to serve as examples the rest of us can admire and emulate. It was evident on Sunday that we have at least one politician who understands what it means to lead and to inspire. President Obama did not taunt the enemy in his Sunday address. He spoke with candor about justice, but his words did not evoke revenge.
Public displays of emotion, even those that originate from conflict, are not inherently perverse. Innumerable photos and newsreels abound of citizens from various countries celebrating the end of World War I & World War II. In those pictures we see men and women rejoicing, not because someone has died, but because the specter of violence has ended. They celebrate in the hope that perhaps no one else will have to die by bloodshed. They celebrate a peace that was won with incredible sacrifice.
While that hope certainly surfaces with the death of Bin Laden, the mobs we have seen in the streets of America are not celebrating peace. As the president stated, the fight against terror goes on. No, the mobs are celebrating violence itself, and that kind of rejoicing debases us all. However difficult it may be, we must reach deep within ourselves to embrace the more courageous and truer principles of peace. We must be better than Osama Bin Laden was.
The War in Afghanistan--10 years later
08/10/10 16:20
President Obama, among others, is fond of saying that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity, while the war in Iraq was a war of choice. Those designations have been used, in part, to emphasize the extraordinary miscalculations of the Bush Administration between 2001 and 2009. A significant part of the problem was the way the two wars were prosecuted, coupled with the fact that the majority of our resources were directed to the war in Iraq--the one of so-called choice.
People are divided, and probably always will be, over the issue of these wars and their perceived necessities. Those who supported President Bush feel the hairs on their neck rise in indignation whenever someone suggests that the war in Iraq was about oil. Still, an honest exchange demands that we at least acknowledge what clever pundits have said for years: If Iraq produced bananas instead of oil, we would never have gone there.
The truth to that rather colloquial wisdom can be seen in the way the Bush Administration neglected Afghanistan in its pursuit of Iraq. After all, if one were to grant the claim that Afghanistan was/is a war of necessity, then why was it not the primary focus of military operations? It appears that capturing Saddam Hussein, a personal ambition of Bush, was more important that capturing Osama Bin Laden, a national need of the country and much of the world. Yet, it seems to me that distinguishing these two wars between necessity and choice, does not address the whole truth.
One reason this distinction has been drawn is that Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, was based in Afghanistan. Although not everyone will agree, one can legitimately argue that sending the U.S. military to route Al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden was a justified response. Due to the ineptitude of the Bush Administration, and the unjustified war in Iraq, that is not the situation we find ourselves in today.
It is not my intent here to argue over the justifications of this or any war. I would suggest that those interested in the truth about just wars follow this link to the Just War Doctrine. My purpose here is of a different nature. My purpose is to question why the United States is still in Afghanistan, beginning its 10th year of military operations.
The question is not wholly a political or military one. If we look at the reasons for entering Afghanistan in the first place, then Al Qaeda has been routed. Osama Bin Laden has not only not been captured, but he fled Afghanistan long ago. George W. Bush ran for office expressly opposed to nation building. And yet, that political argument should dominate the discussion today, for it is the only possible reason that the U.S. is still waging this war. Somehow, the war morphed from dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda into dismantling and defeating the Taliban.
I personally despise everything that the Taliban stands for and if they were attempting to run my country or even run for political power, I would oppose them in every justifiable way. But they are not! The Taliban control some 90% of their own country and, for the most part, are supported by the people--at least those in the rural areas that they dominate. So what is the real truth here, 9+ years later?
The United States is engaged in the worst possible example of nation-building. On this issue we find ourselves in contradiction with stated U.S. policy. We are also in direct contradiction of essential Catholic teaching. Embedded within the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church is that all peoples have a right to self-determination, period. People have a right to choose their own government, even if we disapprove of their choice. They are not answerable to the United States of America for that choice!
Democracy in most of its current forms represents a highly evolved form of government. It is certainly a pertinent example of self-determination. At its core is the right to vote, and that means the right to choose. Sadly, most Americans do not want to admit that we are indoctrinated in the principles of our democracy, and that we are unable to understand how any people could choose another form of government. Worse, that indoctrination frequently prevents us from accepting the choices other people make.
The result is that the history of U.S. foreign relations is rife with interference in the internal affairs of other nations. Sometimes it has led America to side with dictators and despots, including Saddam Hussein, while they run roughshod over the civil rights and liberties of their own people. Sometimes we have been directly involved in the overthrow of legitimately elected governments. Arguably, the most notorious example is the democratically-elected Allende government in Chile, and America's subsequent support for the dictator Pinochet.
When the people of Nicaragua voted the Sandinistas into power, the Reagan Administration violated U.S. law, supporting the Contras in their violent attacks against both political and civilian targets. Why these actions still do not shock the conscience of the American people is mystifying. One might argue strongly that the plight of the oppressed is intensified by this kind of American interference.
The political issues aside, the deepest truth remains that all people have a right to self-determination. If they decide that they can no longer abide the despotic and arbitrary actions of a government, such as the Taliban, it is their right to rise up and seek new leadership. But it is also their right to choose the Taliban.
This might be a good time to end this blog. It might also be a good time for the U.S. to exit Afghanistan!
People are divided, and probably always will be, over the issue of these wars and their perceived necessities. Those who supported President Bush feel the hairs on their neck rise in indignation whenever someone suggests that the war in Iraq was about oil. Still, an honest exchange demands that we at least acknowledge what clever pundits have said for years: If Iraq produced bananas instead of oil, we would never have gone there.
The truth to that rather colloquial wisdom can be seen in the way the Bush Administration neglected Afghanistan in its pursuit of Iraq. After all, if one were to grant the claim that Afghanistan was/is a war of necessity, then why was it not the primary focus of military operations? It appears that capturing Saddam Hussein, a personal ambition of Bush, was more important that capturing Osama Bin Laden, a national need of the country and much of the world. Yet, it seems to me that distinguishing these two wars between necessity and choice, does not address the whole truth.
One reason this distinction has been drawn is that Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, was based in Afghanistan. Although not everyone will agree, one can legitimately argue that sending the U.S. military to route Al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden was a justified response. Due to the ineptitude of the Bush Administration, and the unjustified war in Iraq, that is not the situation we find ourselves in today.
It is not my intent here to argue over the justifications of this or any war. I would suggest that those interested in the truth about just wars follow this link to the Just War Doctrine. My purpose here is of a different nature. My purpose is to question why the United States is still in Afghanistan, beginning its 10th year of military operations.
The question is not wholly a political or military one. If we look at the reasons for entering Afghanistan in the first place, then Al Qaeda has been routed. Osama Bin Laden has not only not been captured, but he fled Afghanistan long ago. George W. Bush ran for office expressly opposed to nation building. And yet, that political argument should dominate the discussion today, for it is the only possible reason that the U.S. is still waging this war. Somehow, the war morphed from dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda into dismantling and defeating the Taliban.
I personally despise everything that the Taliban stands for and if they were attempting to run my country or even run for political power, I would oppose them in every justifiable way. But they are not! The Taliban control some 90% of their own country and, for the most part, are supported by the people--at least those in the rural areas that they dominate. So what is the real truth here, 9+ years later?
The United States is engaged in the worst possible example of nation-building. On this issue we find ourselves in contradiction with stated U.S. policy. We are also in direct contradiction of essential Catholic teaching. Embedded within the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church is that all peoples have a right to self-determination, period. People have a right to choose their own government, even if we disapprove of their choice. They are not answerable to the United States of America for that choice!
Democracy in most of its current forms represents a highly evolved form of government. It is certainly a pertinent example of self-determination. At its core is the right to vote, and that means the right to choose. Sadly, most Americans do not want to admit that we are indoctrinated in the principles of our democracy, and that we are unable to understand how any people could choose another form of government. Worse, that indoctrination frequently prevents us from accepting the choices other people make.
The result is that the history of U.S. foreign relations is rife with interference in the internal affairs of other nations. Sometimes it has led America to side with dictators and despots, including Saddam Hussein, while they run roughshod over the civil rights and liberties of their own people. Sometimes we have been directly involved in the overthrow of legitimately elected governments. Arguably, the most notorious example is the democratically-elected Allende government in Chile, and America's subsequent support for the dictator Pinochet.
When the people of Nicaragua voted the Sandinistas into power, the Reagan Administration violated U.S. law, supporting the Contras in their violent attacks against both political and civilian targets. Why these actions still do not shock the conscience of the American people is mystifying. One might argue strongly that the plight of the oppressed is intensified by this kind of American interference.
The political issues aside, the deepest truth remains that all people have a right to self-determination. If they decide that they can no longer abide the despotic and arbitrary actions of a government, such as the Taliban, it is their right to rise up and seek new leadership. But it is also their right to choose the Taliban.
This might be a good time to end this blog. It might also be a good time for the U.S. to exit Afghanistan!
France and the Burqa
20/09/10 20:15
There are probably scores of people who find it presumptuous and more than a little arrogant for an American to lecture France, or any other country, on religious tolerance. I have never been given to a great deal of modesty, but let me begin by saying that I abhor the intolerance and xenophobia rampant in the United States today, particularly the anti-Latino and anti-Islamic fervor that seems to dominate the daily news. That said, there are some significant problems with both houses of the French parliament passing a law banning Muslim women from wearing the Burqa in public and this is an issue that needs to be addressed and challenged even if it comes from an American like me.
One of the most amazing elements of planet earth is the extensive diversity of culture, religions, and other traditions. I live in Los Angeles, perhaps the most diverse city on the planet. A great deal of its charm is the exposure to and interaction with so many of these different cultures. Not everything can be justified in the name of religious traditions and cultural differences. This is profoundly acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those rights cannot be subverted by differing understandings of God or diverse religious and cultural experiences. By definition these rights are universal and belong to all. Not even religious traditions can claim superiority over them. At the same time objecting to certain traditions and religious beliefs does not necessarily equate with intolerance. So what about the French situation?
It is by now a truism that in times of economic hardship and uncertainty, people in almost every country will look for a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is defined as "the other", usually aliens (legal or illegal) who have come into the country to take away jobs from citizens. The xenophobia that surfaces from such economic stress extends not just to the job market, but embraces the idea that foreigners have come to our lands to change who we are and how we live. The general populace is frequently caught up in a collective memory, or better a collective amnesia, about how things used to be. With little in the way of reality, politicians charge forth with the claim that we can take back our countries from "the other" and restore them to what they used to be. There's just one problem, or maybe two. One, the way our countries used to be exists mostly in the minds of the disillusioned. And two, politicians who play on that amnesia and fear do not really care about the poor or middle class. They simply manipulate suffering and distorted memories for their own self-serving agendas.
In the movie "The American President", Michael Douglas plays a first term president whose reelection is not guaranteed. Attacked relentlessly by a senator from the opposition party named Bob Rumson, he initially remains silent. Finally, in a compelling scene before the White House Press Corps, the president says the following: "Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Sadly, that statement could have been issued by the president or prime minister of any democratic country today. And the accusation is certainly apropos to the French leadership. Some people credit President Sarkozy and other politicians with cleverly taking charge of phrasing the issue of the Burqa, namely, that it violates the rights of women and the traditions of France. Phrasing the issue in that vein would be clever were it not so deceptive and insidious. Let's first take a look at deception. The Burqa may be a bit extreme by Western standards, but it is worn by a clear minority of Muslim women and it is not contrary to the traditions of France.
The history of the Catholic Church, particularly throughout the Western world, should serve as a foundation of reason and tolerance regarding the wearing of the Burqa. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, it seemed as though there was a competition among religious orders of women as to who could design the most outrageous habit. Though clearly not a Burqa, the only body parts of Catholic nuns that were visible were their faces and their hands. Yet no one suggested that Catholic religious habits were contrary to the traditions of France or any other country, or that the habit made Catholic nuns subservient. In fact, history arguably demonstrates that much more societal good was accomplished by nuns than by priests.
The second element in the way Sarkozy phrased the debate is despicable for its insidiousness. In recent years, parts of the Muslim world have come under intense scrutiny and condemnation for the practice of female genital mutilation. While considered a religious practice by some, it is a clear example of religion not being able to trump the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is simply unacceptable and barbaric for any religious group to engage in this mutilation for the sake of advancing an outdated and restrictive approach to sexuality--one that clearly makes women subservient. Sarkozy is a smart politician, and he knew that by appealing to the rights of women and claiming that they were made subservient, he would at least subconsciously play to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Of course, there is no correlation between the wearing of the burqa and female mutilation, but then such problems have never stopped a politician with unbridled personal ambition. It seems hard to imagine, especially living next to the state of Arizona, but the xenophobia of Western Europe is even stronger and more destructive than in the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic it is an offense to the dignity, equality and inherent worth of all human beings and the fact that we share this planet together.
Given that the burqa is worn by such a small minority of Muslim women in France, Sarkozy might consider that by attacking those women who do wear the burqa, all Muslims in France have now been served notice that legitimate traditions of their faith are subject to prejudicial political will, and the oppressive power of the state, especially if provides a scapegoat for society's problems. Not unlike the governor of Arizona, Sarkozy may score the political points he so desperately needs. But in the end, the cost to his own soul and that of the people of France may not be worth it.
One of the most amazing elements of planet earth is the extensive diversity of culture, religions, and other traditions. I live in Los Angeles, perhaps the most diverse city on the planet. A great deal of its charm is the exposure to and interaction with so many of these different cultures. Not everything can be justified in the name of religious traditions and cultural differences. This is profoundly acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those rights cannot be subverted by differing understandings of God or diverse religious and cultural experiences. By definition these rights are universal and belong to all. Not even religious traditions can claim superiority over them. At the same time objecting to certain traditions and religious beliefs does not necessarily equate with intolerance. So what about the French situation?
It is by now a truism that in times of economic hardship and uncertainty, people in almost every country will look for a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is defined as "the other", usually aliens (legal or illegal) who have come into the country to take away jobs from citizens. The xenophobia that surfaces from such economic stress extends not just to the job market, but embraces the idea that foreigners have come to our lands to change who we are and how we live. The general populace is frequently caught up in a collective memory, or better a collective amnesia, about how things used to be. With little in the way of reality, politicians charge forth with the claim that we can take back our countries from "the other" and restore them to what they used to be. There's just one problem, or maybe two. One, the way our countries used to be exists mostly in the minds of the disillusioned. And two, politicians who play on that amnesia and fear do not really care about the poor or middle class. They simply manipulate suffering and distorted memories for their own self-serving agendas.
In the movie "The American President", Michael Douglas plays a first term president whose reelection is not guaranteed. Attacked relentlessly by a senator from the opposition party named Bob Rumson, he initially remains silent. Finally, in a compelling scene before the White House Press Corps, the president says the following: "Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Sadly, that statement could have been issued by the president or prime minister of any democratic country today. And the accusation is certainly apropos to the French leadership. Some people credit President Sarkozy and other politicians with cleverly taking charge of phrasing the issue of the Burqa, namely, that it violates the rights of women and the traditions of France. Phrasing the issue in that vein would be clever were it not so deceptive and insidious. Let's first take a look at deception. The Burqa may be a bit extreme by Western standards, but it is worn by a clear minority of Muslim women and it is not contrary to the traditions of France.
The history of the Catholic Church, particularly throughout the Western world, should serve as a foundation of reason and tolerance regarding the wearing of the Burqa. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, it seemed as though there was a competition among religious orders of women as to who could design the most outrageous habit. Though clearly not a Burqa, the only body parts of Catholic nuns that were visible were their faces and their hands. Yet no one suggested that Catholic religious habits were contrary to the traditions of France or any other country, or that the habit made Catholic nuns subservient. In fact, history arguably demonstrates that much more societal good was accomplished by nuns than by priests.
The second element in the way Sarkozy phrased the debate is despicable for its insidiousness. In recent years, parts of the Muslim world have come under intense scrutiny and condemnation for the practice of female genital mutilation. While considered a religious practice by some, it is a clear example of religion not being able to trump the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is simply unacceptable and barbaric for any religious group to engage in this mutilation for the sake of advancing an outdated and restrictive approach to sexuality--one that clearly makes women subservient. Sarkozy is a smart politician, and he knew that by appealing to the rights of women and claiming that they were made subservient, he would at least subconsciously play to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Of course, there is no correlation between the wearing of the burqa and female mutilation, but then such problems have never stopped a politician with unbridled personal ambition. It seems hard to imagine, especially living next to the state of Arizona, but the xenophobia of Western Europe is even stronger and more destructive than in the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic it is an offense to the dignity, equality and inherent worth of all human beings and the fact that we share this planet together.
Given that the burqa is worn by such a small minority of Muslim women in France, Sarkozy might consider that by attacking those women who do wear the burqa, all Muslims in France have now been served notice that legitimate traditions of their faith are subject to prejudicial political will, and the oppressive power of the state, especially if provides a scapegoat for society's problems. Not unlike the governor of Arizona, Sarkozy may score the political points he so desperately needs. But in the end, the cost to his own soul and that of the people of France may not be worth it.