Posted on 11/23/2001 7:22:35 PM PST by Michael2001
I got a lot of heat for criticizing the last first lady.
But I don't regret it. After all, Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed her unelected position and her warped ideas into a powerful position in the U.S. Senate and possibly a future run for the presidency.
Now I'm going to show, once again, I'm an equal-opportunity offender by taking on Laura Bush.
The first lady gave a radio address last Saturday that simply cries out for comment. I doubt anyone else will do it, so here goes.
Mrs. Bush said the war on terrorism is a fight for the rights and dignity of women and children. As an illustration of what she meant, she said: "Life under the Taliban is so hard and repressive, even small displays of joy are outlawed. Children aren't allowed to fly kites. Their mothers face beatings for laughing out loud."
"Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes," she added. "They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet the terrorists who helped rule the country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
You're probably wondering, "Farah, tell me how you disagree with Mrs. Bush's comments."
I don't, as far as they go. But let's be clear about something. It wasn't terrorism that oppressed women in Afghanistan. It was Islamism. Mrs. Bush is confusing the two terms. And we must be clear as a nation just who the enemy is and for what we are fighting.
If the goal of the U.S. war is to liberate women, we can't stop in Afghanistan. The same draconian Taliban laws that oppressed women exist in many parts of the world – including among some of the nations with whom we have chosen to ally ourselves.
In fact, the Taliban regime was sponsored by our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Taliban regime was supported by the U.S. – particularly by the Clinton administration, which paid so much lip service to women's rights.
In Saudi Arabia, women are oppressed every bit as much as they were in Afghanistan. They can't even drive cars.
Now, we've been told over and over again by the Bush administration that we are not at war with Islam. We've been told ad nauseum what a wonderful religion it is. President Bush even invited 50 Islamic ambassadors to the White House this week for Ramadan prayers.
So which reality are we supposed to believe? Are we at war with terrorism? Or are we at war with radical, fanatical Islamism?
Mrs. Bush muddied the waters even more with her radio address.
"Islam is a religion that respects woman and humanity," she said. "The Taliban respects neither."
Maybe Mrs. Bush would like to believe that Islam is a religion that respects women and humanity, but the historical and current political records don't necessarily support such a conclusion. Islam does not have a great record when it comes to fostering representative government. It does not have a great record in fostering human rights. And it certainly does not have a great track record in furthering the rights of women.
In fact, only the Judeo-Christian tradition does all of those things. That's not to say Jews and Christians have a perfect record. But it was the Judeo-Christian heritage that spawned western civilization and led to those concepts.
It wasn't Islam.
To suggest otherwise is to confuse the issues – and, I fear, deliberately.
We can all rejoice that the Taliban has been crushed. But that was not the original stated goal of our policy. We, as a nation, asked the Taliban to hand over the terrorists. They did not. Thus, the Taliban paid a price. Let's not pretend this military action was designed to liberate the women of Afghanistan. That may be a nice side benefit. But if that is our goal – to liberate the oppressed women of the Islamic world, then it's time to turn our sights to Saudi Arabia and other equally oppressive regimes.
Am I advocating such a policy? No. But I am advocating that we clearly recognize whom we are fighting and why.
Close. More than Islamism, it was FUNDAMENTALISM. I don't care what religious (or even atheistic) myth you believe in -- the fundamentalist element in them are always trying to enforce their narrow little vision. Usually with great brutality.
Down with fundamentalism!!!
You said it all right there.
Queen Noor was on Larry King speaking in support of Laura Bush. I believe she has a valid opinion as well.
Personally, it appears to me that the administration is trying to encourage those branches of the Islamic faith that are more open to better treatment of women. By making this treatment a tenet of the terrorists (which it was, at least in Afghanistan) and marginalizing it, Muslims are encouraged to moderate their views. Also, the Saudis might be re-thinking some of their ways as well.
Most Christians are MUCH more open-minded than most lib's and I would say also most are more open-minded than so-called free-thinkers/Atheists.
Battle cries of those who will not tolerate intolerance OR tolerance...;)
If you want to see serious squirming, watch any Muslim sitting through this speech, which I think we will hear repeated almost ad nauseum from Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Blair, and even Mrs. Putin in the days and weeks ahead.
And it is ironic to see some local religionists here complaining about the burqas enforced by the Taliban even as they agitate to ban nudie bars and porno shows.
The fundies always seem to know just how much skin we are supposed to be allowed to see -- and they will use whatever powers they have in hand to enforce that limitation.
The great thing about fundies is they are predcitable.
I mean, if you don't believe the fundamentals then why are you involved with the Religion or school of thought?
Seems like anyone who doesn't agree with the fundamentals would be a wishy-washy moderate by default.
Fundamentalists grab for power and they use it to enforce their religious views on EVERYONE. The Taliban and Islam is one pernicious example of same. It is hardly the only offender.
Thats really a pretty broad term there. I'd be willing to bet that more than half of the Freepers here would be considered "fundamentalist christian" and a good proportion more that aren't too far from that either. But what is wrong with fundamentals? Everyone has them. Every faith has its fundamentals...its core values from which it will absolutely not depart without committing what it views as heresy. If you go back to the history of christianity in this century alone at the turn of the century when the term "fundamentalism" starting becoming popular, it had to do with the distinction between those who believed in certain fundamental principles of the christian faith and those who were departing from those core values, which are called by many "liberal churches" today.
And of course, in Judaism you have various sects as well ( Reform Judaism, Conservative, Orthodox - Chassidic, the Chabad Lubavich, etc. etc. etc. etc... I suppose, you might as well kill off the Amish while your at it (Oh! yes they have beards too). Most people came to this country to worship as they choose. Many of our ancestors came for religious freedom, in case you didn't know.
I'll tell you what bothers me about this whole Taliban thing and the way in which people are thinking about it....
We cannot equate someone who has religious convictions with terrorism. If a particular religion believes in women covering their heads (which even protestant sects have those groups, not to mention the practice of Catholis nuns and even Eastern orthodox Christian) then that is their business and no state or world government or agency has the right to tell them otherwise.
In the U.S.A. you can choose to belong to a faith that believes in super strict fundamentals (which is really relative to the observer or society I suppose) or you can choose NOT to belong to such a faith or any faith at all.
I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Since when do we have the right to tell other countries how to worship?? But seeing how we have our own problem.... (WACO)
The issue is terrorism and the definition of it, not fundamentalism in general. Islamic Fundamentalists, in particular, are bent on conquest by the sword for Islam. There's no mistake about that. But think... If they ARE Fundamentalist, it means they are holding to the fundamental values and aspirations of their faith, does it not? The question to ask then, is, "is that faith itself, by its own fundamental values a violent and aggressive faith that seeks forceful conversion of all non adherents?" In the case of Islam one only need look at it's written texts, its historical scriptures and history to the answer to that question.
To put what I am saying in a nutshell...
It is Islamic Fundamentalism you should be shouting "down with". A Fundamentalism that breeds terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.