The Allegator

"I do not deny the allegation, I deny the allegator." – Jesse Jackson

Home Archives for Islam

Veena Malik: Don’t Tread on Me

The above video of Veena Malik gives me hope for the future of Islamic nations. The uprisings sparked in Tunisia have spread like wildfire through nations repressed by religion, censorship, and income inequality. Some have been successful, while others haven’t, and the deciding factor seems to be one of courage in numbers.

In places like Tunisia and Egypt, the people came out in such numbers that there was no way for the government to win. At best, they could slaughter their own workforce in order to maintain control of their compound. In China, the internet surveillance was on high alert, and the police response was swift, dragging people out of their homes in the dead of night. Had four protesters come up for every one they took away, China would be the only thing in our news right now.

People like Veena Malik are very important. By coming out on national television and saying several things that would likely get her swiftly killed if she said them in the streets, she has given the church and the government an impossible dilemma. If they kill her, she becomes a martyr for her cause. If they don’t, she gives courage to all of those who were previously afraid to speak out to follow her example.

Iran

Iran is an odd case in international relations. We’ve all gotten used to the regular media firestorms surrounding the nation. They begin with the implication that Iran is moving forward in some way with plans to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. This is followed by a lot of fearmongering by the Jewish Lobby in the media, some aggressive talk by Iran, talks with Russia and China, and ends with the international community threatening Iran and finally giving them some small boon in exchange for promises of being nice.

What I find so odd about this ritual is that it benefits all sides to continue to do it as regularly as the public will support. The media gets ratings, the politicians woo supporters, Israel gets more pity money and free weapons from the U.S., Russia and China strengthen their trade agreements, and Iran gets some trade concessions. All parties increases the fanaticism of their followers.

I’m of the belief that Iran has nuclear weapons, got them from the Russians, and has had them for a long time. I think all of the major powers know it, but keep it quiet because they like the current system and know the revelation would lead to panic and war.

Juan Cole recently wrote an article entitled “Top Ten Things You Think You Know About Iran That Are Not True” A few choice excerpts:

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of “no first strike.” This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran’s military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

Belief: Isn’t the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven’t they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

I’m not a fan of Iran. I don’t like the part they play in this cycle any more than those of the rest of the contributors. My point in this is not to support Iran, but to end a cycle of fear and kickbacks, that while it may be beneficial in the short term to the top players, is bad for the future of the world at large.

Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

Encyclopedias define religious discrimination as ‘valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.‘ That seems like a pretty fair and broad definition, but I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding out there as to what this means.

Most claims of religious discrimination are claims of violation of the first amendment statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I think the first thing that is important to understand here is that the government doesn’t give us our rights, it just hasn’t managed to take all of them away yet. The Constitution isn’t a document granting us rights, it’s a document restricting the actions of government. The thing to note here is that it isn’t the job of Congress to prevent discrimination, but rather to not cause it.

Claims of religious discrimination range from legitimate to ridiculous, and resolving them is difficult in the sense that the ones seemingly being wronged are often the ones asking for the discrimination. Some examples that are already happening:

An Orthodox Jewish couple in Bournemouth have issued a county court writ claiming religious discrimination. Why? This couple contends that they are being held hostage on Shabbat because walking out their door triggers their neighbor’s motion light, and thus their prohibition of ‘making fire’, one of many things they aren’t allowed to do on the Sabbath. Lets say Jehovah’s Witnesses were afraid of motion lights too. Would putting outdoor motion lighting on your front door be a hate crime? This  highlights the problem of the government getting involved in private affairs. What happens when one religion requires motion lights on their door while another forbids it? There is no way to please everyone.

What I find disturbing about this kind of case is that looking at the above definition for religious discrimination, it is the couple who is doing the discriminating by demanding special treatment because of their beliefs. No one else can sue their neighbors for having motion lighting unless they also subscribe to this belief.

Another example is that of the burkha. A girl in Florida tried to get her drivers license photo taken with her burkha on. Obviously the state shot this down. The same goes for being identified before boarding airplanes. It is an interesting dilemma because, while it is the burkha wearers who want the special treatment, denying it is essentially preventing Islamic women from travelling. I would also note that if you are an identical twin, they don’t force you to come up with additional identification to prove you aren’t your sibling. An airline could hire a woman to take the burkha wearers into a private room for identification, but if the airline were small enough to only have one ID checker, then they would be forced to be discriminatory in their hiring practices by only hiring a woman. It is the FAA that requires such checks, so it is a government matter, just as it would be if they were carded at a liquor store. The ACLU thinks it is disallowed because of religious discrimination caused by 9-11, rather than the obvious security reasons of identifying passengers. I’d challenge them to try to go buy some liquor one night wearing a ski mask and see how far they get.

The intent of the constitution as it relates to religious discrimination should be interpreted as a sort of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Those in government should not commit religious acts while on the job, or add them or their terminology into policy, and the government shouldn’t take religion into account when making decisions. Where the lines of discrimination law should be drawn for businesses and individuals, I admit I don’t know. Anyone have any opinions?

Pat Buchanan on the Future of Israel

In Pat’s latest column he looks at the various options available to Israel to adjust for their mounting demographic issues. I’m sure there are unforeseen events that will affect the future of Israel, but I can’t fault his logic here. Israel’s actions are those of a desperate nation seeking escape from an untenable situation.

An excerpt outlining the three main options for going forward:

“The first is annexation of the West Bank. But this would bring 2.4 million Palestinians into Israel, giving her a population 40 percent Arab. With a higher birth rate, Palestinians would soon outnumber Jews and vote to abolish the Jewish state, thus creating a bi-national state. That would mean the end of the Zionist dream.

The second option is the Meir Kahane solution. The late rabbi urged the expulsion of the Palestinians from the occupied territories. But the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians would mean innumerable casualties, a severing of all ties to the Arab world, the moral isolation of Israel and a break with the United States. America could not stand by and let such a human rights atrocity take place.

The third option is the Netanyahu option: no annexation, no ethnic cleaning, no Palestinian state — but permanent control of the West Bank to assure the “Hamastan” in Gaza is never replicated on the West Bank.” -Pat Buchanan

That third option looks pretty good on the surface, which means it is politically nearly guaranteed. Unfortunately it leaves Palestine as a giant concentration camp in permanent apartheid and war.

It really bothers me when religions attempt to simply out-breed their enemies. If they are the source of conflict, the last thing we need is more of them. If I lean towards the Palestinians in this conflict, it isn’t because they are right, but because they are oppressed.

Obama at His Best

I have found myself most impressed with Obama in the speeches you likely didn’t hear on TV. Those where he wasn’t speaking to the American people, but to an opposition group, or on a very touchy subject. For most politicians, this is where you would find their gaffes, but this is Obama at His Best. After eight years of a president who responded to criticism either by hiding or lashing out,  it is doubly impressive to watch a man who realizes that compromise lies not at the midpoint between opposites, but by extending the hand to invite  all parties to the table with the impression that their views will be understood and respected; that they will be included in the final decision, and that all will likely have to make sacrifices in order to come to agreement. It will be that feeling that if they don’t take the proffered hand, that they will be left behind that will fuel the peace process. I’ve heard it said of the stock market that it isn’t fear of failure or the hope of profit that drives men to buy and sell when they do, but the prospect of watching others profit without them because they didn’t act when they had the chance.

Here are a few of the better Obama Moments thus far:

On religion: This is the first of a series, the rest should be linked at the end.

On Race:

On the middle east: