In Sunday’s New York Times, Paul Berman writes about “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die” and offers up his theories as to why it is that extremism survives in Iraq, as well as why it flourishes in the West, too. Berman states that,

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

This critique by Berman can also be extended, to some degree, to the humanist movement. For example, in the January/February 2008 issue of the Humanist, in a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authors David Schafer and Michelle Koth conclude, in part, by saying,

Her approach is poorly informed about the past and present of Islam, ineffectual at best, mainly counter-productive, and at worst potentially catastrophic in its consequences. It is here, too, that the influences of her principal intellectual environments since 2003—the VVD Party in the Netherlands and the American Enterprise Institute in the United States—taken as a whole, have clearly discouraged her development as a well-balanced defender of human rights and security.

Schafer and Koth are perhaps correct in stating that,

Hirsi Ali’s prior experience of Islam was confined to her youthful and often painful life in Africa: the tribal variety in Somalia, the strict Wahhabi version in Saudi Arabia, and in Kenya the Islamist political formulations of the Muslim Brothers and even more radical Sayyid Qutb—all followed by her intense contact with mainly African (e.g., Somali and Moroccan) immigrant women who had suffered abuse in the Netherlands. She knew little about the complex history of Islam in other times and other places.

While her views on Islam aren’t based on years of study, her intense, personal understanding of the religion also cannot be dismissed. Though what she dealt with is not the form of Islam practiced by every Muslim, it is also difficult to argue that she is taking her stand purely because of the ideology of the VVD Party, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Indeed, as the West continues to encounter Islam, not only on grand geopolitical scales, but everyday at the corner store or in a school hallway, it is imperative to recognize the vast and heterogeneous nature of Islam. What is perhaps forgotten, then, is that this also extends to the varying types of critiques of Islam. For Schafer and Koth to deride Hirsi Ali’s analysis of Islam simply because her view doesn’t conform to their understanding of the religion leads them down the same narrow path that they’re alleging Hirsi Ali has taken. It’s unfortunate that Schafer and Koth have fallen into the trap that so many others on the Left have fallen into.

It’s always troubling for me to see the emptiness of the rhetoric and the lack of coherent arguments that has emerged from our movement regarding the liberation of Iraq. T.F. Kelley’s recent online column for the Humanist is unfortunately no different in this regard (for a more nuanced view of Iraq at this five-year anniversary, check out a Week in Review article from the New York Times). I am continually astounded that when the topic of conversation turns to Iraq, we, who claim the mantle of critical thinking and humane values, suddenly cannot help but point out the conspiratorial hand of Big Oil, and the supposedly secular utopia that was built by Saddam. Only two of Kelley’s points appear to require any serious rebuttal.

Kelley writes, “I don’t believe it’s a ‘tragedy of the Left’ to be unwilling to apply the idea of justice for all by supporting an illegal war, not one declared by Congress and in contradiction to [the] will of the United Nations.” If Kelley wishes to be told by politicians and bureaucrats what is ethical and what is not, he is free to do so. However, considering the social and legal struggles humanists, atheists and all freethinkers have fought for, we know that the institutions that we as a society have created are not always fully just, and that what is right and wrong is not always the same as what is legal and illegal.

The implied claim by Kelley that liberal hawks did not apply any rigorous or critical thought to the question of Iraq in the lead up to March of 2003 is laughably ridiculous, at best. By simply typing “liberal hawks” into Google, readers will find a plethora of articles by liberal hawks discussing amongst themselves the difficulties in rendering a decision on this matter, as well as articles about the choices – and reasoning behind those choices – that were made. Liberal hawks were not drawn into the right-wing culture of fear created by the White House, but they also refused to stand alongside a Left which is becoming increasingly isolationist in it’s outlook. Our first and foremost concern was, and continues to be, the people of Iraq. Kelley may not wish to acknowledge that, but the weight of evidence easily available on the Internet belies his claims.

At the end of his essay, Kelley speaks of the Iraqi boys in the photo that accompanied the print version of my article. It’s encouraging to see him show some concern for their wellbeing. I wonder, though, if Saddam were still in power, would Kelley still have been concerned about their fate? Or would they simply have been someone else’s problem?

Do Muslim doctors have the right to refuse treatment to an alcoholic or an individual with an STD?

Well, some Muslim medical students in Britain, due to their religious beliefs, are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases. Some are even going so far as to refuse treatment to a member of the opposite sex.

The article, posted on Times Online, reports:

The [General Medical Council] said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate.” Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice.”

When did we give doctors the ability to pick-and-choose their patients? If a doctor treats an alcoholic, is he condoning alcoholism? Of course not.

If Muslim doctors refuse to provide the same services to both men and women—and treat ALL diseases—then they should not become doctors. It disgusts me when doctors and pharmacists anywhere in the world deny men and women basic access to medical care due to their religious beliefs. We see it everywhere in the United States when pharmacists refuse to fill a woman’s birth control prescription. What will stop Muslim doctors from refusing patients who do not share a belief in Allah? When will it end?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic of Islam who moved to the United States to escape death threats, returned to the Netherlands on Monday because the Dutch government said it would no longer pay for her security needs while she lived in the United States.

Hirsi Ali’s return raises the question of how the Netherlands or any country can protect its citizens from extremists while securing the rights of free speech and critical debate. Some politicians have called for an urgent session of Parliament. Many in the United States want to know why our government hasn’t stepped in to guarantee her protection in some way.

Dutch novelist Leon de Winter, a supporter of Hirsi Ali, offered the following commentary, reprinted in the New York Times and Courrier International:

Dutch society has no choice in this case. Canceling Ayaan’s protection would be the equivalent of a death sentence. Because she is so well known in the Netherlands and practically lives the life of a prisoner, not even able to go out on the street, the most humane solution is to continue to provide her with protection in America.

Society should cover the cost of this protection, for freedom of expression, one of the pillars of our culture, is being questioned. … The cost of this protection is nothing compared to its goal, which is to guarantee the continuity of our values.

So how do we as citizens of free countries reach out to protect those who have the courage to speak out? Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports that, according to her lawyer, Britta Böhler, Hirsi Alli is willing to pay for her own protection but that it will take some time to find the necessary resources. What is the cost of courage for the individual and for the nations? Both in monetary and in less substantial but still important terms. Can we let someone who is brave enough to speak out stand by themselves or shouldn’t we stand with them?

In the last few weeks, the Burmese people and monks have been protesting against their dictatorial military government in an attempt to bring freedom and democracy to their nation. This has been an ongoing struggle for 40+ years, and the Burmese people need our global solidarity to increase pressure on their government and the Asian governments that support the brutal regime.

The military junta has created a gulag atmosphere in the major cities to counter the peaceful demonstrations, rounding up people in the dead of night, beating people randomly, and detaining and torturing Buddhist monks. At least 200 monks have been killed, with over 2,500 arrested. We know that countless citizens have also been killed, with upwards of 3,000 arrested. They have stopped most external communication, cutting internet and phone lines in and out of Burma, in an attempt to keep their brutality out of the world press. But the world is watching what they’re doing to their defenseless citizens, and we will not be silent!

The time for action is NOW to show the Burmese people that we support them in their struggle for freedom and justice!

Saturday, October 6th, is the Global Day of Action on Burma. Many locals from all over the country have arranged vigils, marches, and speakers. The idea is that in every major and minor city in the world, events will start at noon local time to show a wave of international support for the Burmese people. Everyone, nationwide, is encouraged to wear red to show solidarity with the saffron-robed monks risking their lives for democracy and human rights.

The AHA is supporting a major rally and march in Washington, D.C. this Saturday. We expect over 1,000 people to attend! I am an organizer for this event and a number of the staff members from the AHA will be in attendance.

You can see if local events have been scheduled in your area by clicking here. You can also register your own local event, if you chose to plan one, by clicking here. Make sure to contact local media if you decide to plan an event, which will raise the profile of the Burma issue in your town.

If you need more information on current events in Burma, visit the US Campaign for Burma, Mizzima News or the Irrawaddy News Magazine.

On August 15^th, 2007, the Burmese military dictators raised gasoline and natural gas prices by as much as 500 percent, citing global rises in fuel prices and a constricted supply. Serving as the straw that broke the camel’s back in this socially repressive, economically depressed, and technologically deprived South East Asian nation of about 50 million, small protests erupted in many cities around the country. Growing in fervor and size every day during August, despite threats of action by the generals, these first protests in almost 10 years in Burma brought international attention once again to the despotic regime and their suffering people.

As the protests gained momentum, the junta physically assaulted protesters and attempted to incite rioting using plain-clothed security forces. The junta used these same tactics rather effectively during the failed 1988 uprisings, but things would be different this time. This time, the monks are taking the lead.

Buddhism has in it a special place reserved for reverence of enlightened rulers who make laws using and upholding Buddha’s teachings. For centuries, Burmese leaders have claimed legitimacy through the practice, protection, and promotion of Buddhism, in a similar tradition to the kings of Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. The military junta, in the shadow of the kings, claims to be upholding the teachings of the Buddha and his followers. It is the monks, as the clergy in Buddhism, who, in performing sacrament and accepting alms, signal to the people that the government is upholding these teachings, including tolerance, understanding, compassion, and purposeful social actions. But any glance at the various annual reports on the disastrous human rights situation in the country makes it clear that the junta is not walking in the shadow of Buddha or the ancient Burmese kings, but more marching with the likes of Pol Pot and Mao. And so, after 20 years of deadly silence, the monks are engaging in a boycott of the government. The junta can no longer claim to be working in the name of Buddha.

It appears that the lack of separation of church and state in Burma has actually helped the chances of this Saffron Revolution’s success. Because the monks are boycotting the junta, and since the junta claims legitimacy based on Buddhism, it is precisely the lack of separation between the church and state that may bring down the government.

No one can say for sure where this Saffron Revolution will lead. Just today in Burma up to 7 monks and nuns were killed, tens more injured, and hundreds more arrested. But the people didn’t retreat; 100,000 took to the streets despite the mounting violence. The thoughts of the world are with the Burmese people and their monks in their time of need.

As the popular Burmese freedom chant goes, “Do Ye, Do Ye, Democracy Yashi Ye!”—”Our Cause, Our Cause, Democracy Now!”

[UPDATE: As of September 28th, the military has cut internet communications off, occupied key monasteries (sieged in the night), arrested hundreds of monks, and killed at least 200 unarmed protesters and monks. But the people continue to march, with near to 100,000 taking to the streets of Rangoon for an 11th day.]

During the course of a recent online journey through the wonderful world of conservative blogs, I was distracted by an strange advertisement for “The Nazareth Cross: the World’s Largest Cross.” Based on the picture used in the ad I didn’t think it could be real. I was mistaken.

Yes, the Nazareth Cross Project aims to build a 60 meter (180 foot) tall cross in the northern Israeli city of Nazareth, which is widely considered to be the birth place of Jesus.The website for the project is mostly an effort to get people to donate the funds needed to build the cross. Donors will be able to include their personal engraving on one of the 7.2 million tiles that will adorn the cross. These tiles will be made of local stone, gold, silver, or platinum, depending on the generosity of the donor. Since the website exists primarily to bring in donations, I am somewhat comforted by the possibility that this is all a scam.

Of Nazareth’s 64,800 inhabitants, approximately 70% are Muslim. I wonder how they feel about this? Is it really helpful to have a 180-foot cross obstructing the skyline of this predominantly Muslim city? Sadly, the crusades of the high Middle Ages continue to serve as a powerful symbol and starting point in a long history of perceived Western meddling in the Middle East. Well, here we have a newer, more tangible 180-foot, gold/silver/platinum plated symbol of Western meddling.

That oughta win a few hearts and minds, not that we’re doing a very good job anyways.

On August 29, 2007 Buzz Flash awarded its Wings of Justice Award to Mary Pipher. Mary Pipher is best known for her book, Reviving Ophelia which was a New York Times bestseller for 150 weeks. She received the Buzz Flash award for returning the prestigious Presidential Citation award from the America Psychological Association in protest over the group’s policy on military and CIA interrogations.

At its annual convention in August the APA’s policymaking council voted 85% to 15% to reject a measure to ban its members from participating in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention centers. Instead, a resolution was approved that prohibited psychologists from direct or indirect participation in 19 “unethical” interrogation techniques and called upon the U.S. government to ban their use.

The vote upset Pipher, who has worked with victims of torture and has seen the lifelong harm it can inflict. Pipher also criticized loopholes in the resolution on such techniques as sensory and sleep deprivation, which cause people to fall apart very quickly.

I think Pipher’s actions are in the best spirit of Humanist action even if she isn’t a Humanist. Here is someone taking a stand, even against the community she works in, because the actions of that community are not right. Here is a champion. And if you read her letter or listen to her interview on Democracy Now you will see she is both brave and compassionate even in struggle with an advisary.

In an attempt to put the American people at ease with the concept of remaining in Iraq, the president gave a bumbling, historically inaccurate speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Kansas City yesterday. In his attempt to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, Bush said:

One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people’, ‘re-education camps’, and ‘killing fields’.

What about the 4 million Vietnamese civilians indiscriminately killed in a conflict perpetuated by US involvement? South Vietnam was a dictatorship supported in the vain fight against Communism, and more blood was shed during our long involvement in Vietnam than in the years after the war. That’s the real legacy.

Bush also believes that Iraq is currently a democracy. Ok, yes, they have elections, but there are multiple car bombs a day and hundreds of civilians die a week. I would personally rather lived repressed than in constant fear of dying at the market. And you?

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) sums it up nicely in saying, “instead of providing the country with a history lesson…[Bush] should be reevaluating his flawed strategies.”

On a final note, the Los Angeles Times provides a thoughtful take on yesterday’s speech, saying it contained

rhetoric that would stir any patriot but logic that should persuade few. . . . The real lesson of Vietnam is that its civil war was a nationalist struggle that toppled no communist “dominoes” across Asia. Bush’s rhetoric implying an Al Qaeda “domino effect” in the Middle East has the same false ring.

Sorry Georgie, but maybe you should consult a college student who has taken a modern history class, as I think they may be more help than your current aides.

Recently, observers of the international scene have noted the declining state of Russian democracy. While it has been over 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of democracy behind from behind the “Iron Curtain,” it seems increasingly likely that the democratic Renaissance has come to an end.

Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his desire to return to the command-and-control years of the Soviet era. For example, he has interfered with the legitimate right of the Russian people to protest. Furthermore, he has clamped down on business owners, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was the founder and CEO of the Yukos oil company, and taken control of these major sectors of the Russian ecomony–under the pretext that these companies owed back taxes to the Russian government.

One of the most widely recognized anti-democratic signals from the Russian administration is of course the mystery surrounding the untimely death of Alexander Litvinenko–the former KGB agent who died from radioactive poisoning in London last year. While there has been no clear evidence to suggest that the Russian government was behind his death, there have been strange signals from the Russian government that suggest they have become wary of the West–namely, their refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the man that Scotland Yard considers as the prime suspect.

The larger significance? Political trends in one of the world’s top economies affect U.S. foreign policy. So while this country may now be focused on fighting “The Global War on Terror,” it is wise to consider that at some point we may be fighting a Cold War II, if we don’t do something to encourage reforms.

As Westerns from a developed country, there is often the feeling that passion about a cause places the passionate individual above all others. While I cannot fault the Save Darfur campaign for raising awareness about the crisis in Sudan, it cannot be forgotten that much of the work to “save Darfur” is being done by Africans. The African Union has sent troops and aid, and it is mostly Africans on the ground helping the people of Darfur. And while raising awareness is very important, if the campaign will not push the U.S. government to get involved in the crisis (which I doubt will happen), then it is only Africans providing material assistance on the ground. In a Washington Post column today, Uzodinma Iweala writes:

News reports constantly focus on the continent’s corrupt leaders, warlords, “tribal” conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like “Can Bono Save Africa?” or “Will Brangelina Save Africa?” The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and “civilization.”…There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans… Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head — because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West’s fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West’s prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems… How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?

I could not agree more with the author’s sentiments. We not only need to better understand the dynamics of conflict evolution/de-evolution and humanitarian assistance in Africa, but we need to give credit where credit is due; not to the Bonos and Angelinas of the world, but to the Wangari Maathais and Dr. Cynthia Muangs. As activists, we must remember what we are doing and why we are doing it. It is to enrich your own ego? Or is it to enrich the lives of others? We need to start looking toward the creation of a new kind of issue-based campaigning — with goals of enabling people who live in and with conflict daily to continue to help themselves. As the old adage goes, “Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day…”

Car bombers linked to al-Qaeda (almost…) detonated three separate car bombs this weekend in the U.K., two in London and one at the Glasgow Airport. This led me to question our own level of safety from terror attacks, especially pertinent to us living in the nation’s capital, a seemingly prime target for such activities.

Why have there been no attacks in America since 9/11? I am of course thankful that nothing has happened domestically, but why has nothing happened? Are federal government anti-terror practices working, averting bombings of the likes the U.K. has seen in the past two years? Or, as The Onion satirized, are terrorists becoming complacent with/in America? Is there another answer?

Given the lack of trust I have in the current administration, and given their failed policies all across the board, including toward anti-terrorism efforts, a few examples on proven anti-terror failures come to mind. First, there is the largely unguarded East Coast port system. Second, don’t forget about the constant ability for TSA undercover agents to sneak weapons and bomb material past airport security. And finally, the weigh station/security system on our nations highways is rarely even in working order (I drove from GA to DC and not a SINGLE weigh station was open. Could I not have had a dirty bomb in my U-Haul??)

So, again, I’ll pose the question that has been nagging me…What has prevented more 9/11s??

(Click “Read on…” to see the comments)

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

As reported today in the Independent, officials of a group called The Organization to Commemorate the Martyrs of the Muslim World said a £80,000 reward should be paid to anyone “able to execute the apostate Salman Rushdie.”

Well, as we can see, rationality has returned to the Middle East!!!

In today’s news, novelist Salman Rushdie has a price on his head, and it is a pretty penny. Inflamed by the British crown’s knighting of Rushdie, Iranian jihadists are offering nearly $160,000 for his murder.

In other disturbing Mid-East developments concerning Rushdie, Pakistani youth (yes, YOUTH) are burning effigies of Rushdie and the Queen, in protest that one of the greatest writers of our time, an avowed humanist, spoke ill of Islam in his 1998 book The Satanic Verses.

“If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the ’sir’ title,” said Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq.

Those, my friends, are the words of the Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister. That’s right, members of the Pakistani cabinet (allies of Bush Co.) are calling for suicide bombings against a fellow humanist!!!

And when asked at the New Humanism conference at Harvard in April what ever had become of that fatwa against him for writing The Satanic Verses, Rushdie commented that it was all thankfully behind him. How wrong he was.

Rushdie, an active humanist, is featured in the July/August edition of The Humanist magazine, on newsstands now.

Today is Aung San Suu Kyi’s 62nd Birthday, her 11th spent under house arrest by the most brutal regime in Asia today, the Burmese Junta.

Aung San Suu Kyi was the head of the National League for Democracy, the party that won an astounding percentage of the vote in the 1990 Burmese elections. The junta ignored the results and put her under house arrest. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after the elections, and is today the world’s only Nobel laureate under arrest.

So why should you care? Because she embodies so many of the principles of democracy, justice, accountability, and perseverance that we all hold dear.

My favorite Aung San Suu Kyi quote, and one that I think rings especially true in today’s turbulent world: “Please use your liberty to promote ours.”

Some time today, look to the West and give her your thoughts, if only for a moment. Please keep her in your thoughts until she is free!!