Sorcery charges in Iran portend what could happen in U.S. if religious fundamentalists take control…

May 7, 2011

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black or accusing it of black magic, I can hardly take the folks in Iran’s higher ruling echelons seriously when they have political rivals arrested for practicing “sorcery”.

It seems that the slightly eccentric President Mahmoud Amadinejad, noted for his idiotic pronouncements and tirades, his opposition to the survival of Israel and his denial that the Holocaust ever happened, his looking as if he forgot to shave, and his penchant for wearing what most would call a light work jacket, instead  of the customary coat and tie, or even robes in his part of the world, is having a feud with Iran’s supreme religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei (not to be confused with his predecessor of a similar name), who claims that he, the Ayatollah, is the final arbiter of all things political as well things religious and cultural (in other words everything).

So without getting into all the details, Akmadinejad has seen some of his cohorts arrested for practicing sorcery.

Being able to level a charge of criminal sorcery would be a handy tool to have here in the United States for a political rival who feared his or her opponent’s charisma and ability to mesmerize audiences. For instance, Sarah Palin seems to manage to captivate certain  audiences (ignorant though they may be). Maybe she’s a witch. Maybe The Donald is a warlock. Have them locked up for sorcery. Or maybe they in turn would level charges of black magic against our first black president (that would be Barack Obama, not Bill Clinton).

It seems a little strange and ironic to me that the supreme religious leader in Iran would accuse anyone of practicing sorcery. I mean, I do not want to offend anyone who considers themselves religious or anyone who is a religious leader on any level. I have to explain that I personally cannot claim to be religious, even though I often invoke the name of God and even have a kind of latent belief in some type of holy (or higher) being and because of cultural upbringing lean toward Christianity. But to be a regious leader, such as the Ayatollah, or even the Pope, seems like, on its face, must require the belief in the supernatural by both the leader and the followers who recognize the leader.

So one sorcerer accuses another of being a sorcerer.

On the serious side, the goings on in Iran point to the dangers of having a religion-controlled government, a theocracy, or even just an official religion.

It is not a stretch to say the same or similar goings on could happen here in the United States if the religious right ever got complete control (they have made serious inroads into the Republican Party, with potential candidates feeling it necessary to make their appearances and kowtows before fundamentalist Christian gatherings).


Appreciating and giving thanks for Thanksgiving…

November 25, 2010

The freeway was crowded with cars last night what with everyone going here and there to be with family. Well if everyone goes somewhere, who stays home?

I’m in a good mood, even though I also have the sadness that this will be the first Thanksgiving in more than 40 years I will not spend with my wife, she having passed away this past summer. I’m in a good mood because I will be with family and family is what I need right now.

It is heartening to me to see that people are so eager to be with family. Maybe we all haven’t quit the family thing after all in this increasingly impersonal world.

Of course I know the holidays can be a tricky time too when it comes to family get togethers. Sometimes old rivalries and jealousies, aided and abetted at times by alcohol, come out.

But let’s hope that is not the case for you reading this, and my advice is that if you see it coming — back off, nothing is to be gained.

I’ve been so busy driving the long haul that I am not fully up on the latest nonsense from Sarah Palin, but from listening to John Rothman on KGO last night I understand she has criticized JFK for a statement or speech he made about separation of church and state.

You’ll recall that his campaign for the presidency was threatened by charges that he being a Catholic would mean he would be taking cues from the Pope. He answered that although he was indeed a devout Catholic, he understood the need for separation of church and state in a nation where our constitution guarantees religious freedom.

There’s a lot of irony here. We know from our earliest school days, dressing up like pilgrims, that those funny-clad folks came over here for religious freedom. But strangely they would not have been too tolerant of anyone who did not believe like they did.

But here’s the deal as far as I can see it — and like so much else, I have blogged this before:

You cannot have religious freedom (which to me includes the right not to be religious) if the government in any way favors or otherwise recognizes one religion over the other.

On the other hand, we (the U.S.) are by our history nominally (maybe not the right word) a Christian nation. And we do have In God We Trust written on our money (although that does not specify the Christian God, but we know that is what it means). But we have also agreed to allow all to worship or not worship as they please.

I’m not going to go on with all of this now, since I need to prepare for visiting with family and chowing down on Thanksgiving dinner.

But I will say I am thankful for family and the bounty God (or whatever supreme power) has bestowed upon me. And I recognize that not all are so fortunate.

And what do I do for the less fortunate? Not a lot. I do not feel that I have the money to spare for charity directly, but I do pay taxes, and I do not begrudge any of that money going for those in true need.

And I am trying to get out of this blog and not digress into further subjects or variations of the same subject. But I wish there were some way to create a public assistance program that targeted individuals and families in true need due to circumstances beyond their control, such as unemployment and health problems. But a lot of our social service funding is wasted (and I mean a lot) on people who make a career out of gaming the system. Yes it works that way at both ends of the ladder. People at the bottom game the welfare system and people at the top game the federal tax structure and the financial system.

Honest people carry the burden. But they also have a clean conscience and will not have so much explaining to do when they meet God (or the supreme power).

And that is my sermon for the day.

Enjoy! HAPPY THANKSGIVING!


Even with freedom of the press, do we really need to give a crazy reverend a platform?

September 9, 2010

I’m not usually one to get down on the news media publishing or broadcasting things, especially since I believe in freedom of the press and since I also worked for many years as a journalist and besides news is news whether one likes it or not.

But I would not mind if some of the major news outlets played down the story of this nut case The Rev. Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida who plans to burn copies of the Quran (Koran), the holy book of the religion of Islam. Should the crazy so-called preacher be given a platform?

In addition I am not sure but whether there are grounds for some type of law enforcement action or court injunction against him on perhaps such charges as inciting a riot, disturbing the peace or even civil rights violations, seeing as such action might be akin to the KKK conducting a cross burning. I’m not sure that a cross burning that is not on someone’s front lawn and is designed to terrorize particular victims is against the law, but everyone knows what the idea of such things are. And then of course there is also the fire safety issue concerning the planned Quran burning set for the anniversary of 9/11 on Saturday.

Another strange thing I have noticed is that this crazy reverend in the photos I have seen bears a striking resemblance to the late Buddy Ebsen of Beverly Hillbillies fame — my apologies to Mr. Ebsen’s memory.

I do not say that the story of all of this should not be reported. It is a legitimate story concerning the ongoing controversy over world-wide terrorism and its connection with Islam and whether it is really a part of Islam or just concerns actions taken by those hiding behind the shield of Islam. And certainly if a lot of people were to take part, it would be a major news story.

But for now it basically seems to be something about a weirdo who claims to be a man of God and who may in reality be using this as a publicity stunt because he and his church and other enterprises have money problems.

And I have to ask anyone who would do this, burn Qurans, what is the difference between burning one religion’s holy book and another’s. Should not Moslems (or Muslims) then burn the Holy Bible?

There is also the question of what this action does for the safety of military personnel and others. It is one more excuse for terrorists and their sympathizers to attack Americans, although they probably are not waiting for another excuse.

I am glad that so many people, religious leaders included, have condemned what one obviously demented man wants to do.

——————–

ADD 1:

Since I posted the original version President Obama has spoken out against the planned Quran burning. Of course the crazies among  us will just say he’s a Muslim anyway (and for the record, as far as anyone of intelligence knows, unless he is a secret or closet Muslim, he is actually a professed Christian only).

——————-

The only good thing out of all of this may be that the rest of the world can both see that most Americans do not approve (I hope that is so) but at the same time we have so much freedom here that the man is safe to do it anyway (what I suggested notwithstanding).

ADD 2:

I guess you can’t unring a bell, so this hate monger of a reverend already got what he wanted — he is news, with even the president commenting upon his planned action. But news as pure entertainment has certainly cheapened news.


First Amendment protects mosque building plan, but we need to keep an eye on it…

August 7, 2010

When I saw a photo on the Time Magazine online site of the rear ends of Muslims praying in Washington, D.C. in connection with a story about the controversy over the planned building of an Islamic mosque near the 9/11 ground zero site in New York, I recalled that I used to tell my now late wife that the best way to strike back at that part of the Muslim world that is out to get us was to wait till they get down on their knees to pray to Mecca and take that opportunity to kick ’em in the behind.

My own silliness aside, I don’t see how the building of the proposed mosque, which got New York Landmark Commission approval this past week and which has the blessings, so to speak, of the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, but not of the former mayor and former Republican primary presidential candidate and all-around stick in the mud Rudy Giuliani, can be denied when we have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As we all know, the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and prohibits our government from favoring one belief over another.

Opponents say it would be disrespectful to the surviving family members of 9/11 victims (probably conveniently setting aside the fact many were Muslim) and the victims themselves, and furthermore, they are suspicious of what might be the real intention of those building it — might they use it as a meeting place to work out further plots against our nation?

Now that last point is of some valid concern. And I would think that the authorities need to be aware of that possibility. But the constitution says explicitly that the government is not supposed to mess with the practice of religion or favor one over the other — even though many Christians would say, yes, yes, of course we have religious freedom, but ours (Christianity) is the historical main religion in the U.S. and needs special consideration.

But you know, I’m all for the proper undercover authorities keeping their eye out for conspirators against the nation, but I don’t think conspirators are limited to hatching their plots in churches or mosques.

I am unclear as to who all might be behind this mosque project. I know that the main person is supposed to be a supposedly moderate Muslim imam known as Faisal Abdul Rauf. Some, however, charge that he only pretends to be moderate for western ears (don’t know). At any rate, as long as there is no evidence that the project is anything more than a benign religious one, I don’t see any legal basis for denial.

P.s.

It does seem troubling that the silence from the part of the Muslim community who are peaceful and not out to get us that we are told exists seems deafening at times.

P.s. P.s.

It would also be troubling if the new mosque, which I understand is also to be an interfaith center, were to be used as a forum for spreading views subversive to our nation. But that can happen even in supposedly Christian churches — Jeremiah Wright?

And some of the white or predominantly white Christian fundamentalist churches seem to put out a message of extreme intolerance and even defiance of our democratic (note the small d) government.

So, having noted that, I have reminded myself of why subversives might prefer to meet in a church or mosque or temple, or whatever — to hide under the umbrella of the First Amendment.

Yes. Freedom of speech and religion and movement our society offers does pose a threat to security, but we have managed to come this far. I think we can continue without going to the police state — we don‘t want to become Iran.


Miracle in the swamp — girl found safe and sound by lone church man led by God; it could be true (or not)

April 14, 2010

Hundreds of rescuers could not find a lost girl in a swamp. But in some kind of miracle one lone individual with God’s help does so. This certainly can be true or it can be a hoax. I saw the video of the “rescuer”. I know a lot of people thought what I did. Are we terrible and insensitive and ungodly people for thinking that thought? Or do we just compare this with what we have seen in the past? And of course no matter what, the happy news is that the young girl, who reportedly has Asperger Syndrome (a form of autism), is reportedly safe and sound.


Obama revealed as the Anti-Christ — so that’s it….

January 24, 2010

While I was driving down the freeway in the middle of the night and trying to find a station on my poor excuse for a radio I heard the fundamentalist preacher warn, not directly by name, but by unmistakable implication, that Barack Obama with his eloquent speech is the Anti-Christ, as foretold in the Book of Revelations. So that’s it. That answers all my questions as to why we are in such hot water (not really).

I heard this line during the presidential campaign, with the speakers not using Obama’s name, and during that time, since he had not been elected they might be able to pretend they did not mean Obama. But now the gloves have come off and some on the evangelical-guided right wing are making it clear that we are headed in the wrong direction as a nation, that we have been taken in by the Anti-Christ.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that most or all of these evangelicals making the claims are lily white and that there is some bit of racism in all of this, just as there was some racism in the ravings of that black  preacher– and would he be called an evangelical? — Jeremiah Wright who Obama was forced to distance himself from, even though he had quite willingly listened to him in the past.

These radio and TV  televangelists and all preachers certainly have a right to voice their opinions and superstitions, but I hope they are not enjoying tax exempt status when the meddle in politics (I think many of them do, though).

And I think the solution many of them offer is to send money directly to them or buy their tapes.


As nutty and detestable as he is, Iran’s Ahmadinejad may have a point — but it’s not worth much…

September 26, 2009

Holocaust deniers are either liars or nut cases or both at the same time.

That said, Iran’s President Mamoud Ahmadinejad finally came up with the right argument, to a degree – not that the Holocaust (Hitler’s murder of some 6 million Jews – mostly Jews – during World War II) did not happen, but that it is one among many such events in history and that, in fact, things just as bad are happening right now.

But of course Ahmadinejad’s credibility is gone because in the past and probably still now, depending upon his audience, he has steadfastly denied that the Holocaust ever happened. There of course is far too much evidence (the Nazis loved to record their deeds in writing and in still photos and movies – and those who liberated the camps, not to mention the survivors, can testify as to what took place).

I hate to admit it, though, but he now, for the benefit of the American audience, makes a point I have always wondered about myself. As terrible as the Holocaust was, it was not the only such event to ever happen in history and genocide goes on today in places such as Darfur in Africa. And yet Hitler’s mass murder of Jews seems to get more attention and have more consequences than any of the other events. It accounted for the creation of the modern state of Israel through the collective guilt of the western world, which in turn has accounted for unrest in the Middle East for some 60 years.

Maybe one of the most troubling aspects of the Holocaust is that it took place in a highly civilized western nation (Germany) and the civilized nations it conquered. In effect, neighbors turned upon their own, or turned a blind eye to their fates, out of fear of the police state, our of jealousy, and out of some kind of rationalization that after all these people were of the wrong religion, the one that is blamed for killing Jesus.

And isn’t that the way? Religion always seems to lurk where murder and mayhem take place around the world. Stranger still, all three of the world’s major religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam preach peace but somehow seem to account for so much war and terrorism. Some religious leaders will explain that away by saying that it is just bad people using religion as an excuse, but many of those bad people call themselves religious leaders.

But getting back to Ahmadinejad, in my personal opinion, fellas like him and Gadfafy Duck or whatever his name is from Libya are so irrational and mean spirited that they should be largely ignored in serious discussions and should not be given a platform in serious events.

On the other hand, they need an eye kept on them.

Nut cases and evil people that they are, their actions can have consequences– Remember Adolf Hitler.

P.s.

I have not managed to get this blog mobile yet. Will be back out on the road, so unless I can manage to get a wireless connection, it may be a day or two until I post again or respond to any comments that might come my way.

P.s. P.s.

I think President Barack Obama sent the right message to the rest of the world at the UN the other day – to paraphrase, he said that while other nations have complained that the U.S. spent too many years going it alone in world affairs, they cannot sit back and now expect the U.S. to solve all the world’s problems (except I suppose the ones we may have created, but then again we need help on those too).


Don’t cry for South Carolina Governor Sanford Argentina; Republicans: you may cry…

June 24, 2009

To the religous right and to all who insist on mixing religion and religious morality with politics — please give it a rest or at least admit that those who espouse their religous beliefs in supporting their own political candidacies are more than likely two-faced.

I am listening to South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford explain that the story behind his disappearance of the past week revolves around an affair he has had outside his marriage for the past year at least.

Yet another religious right Republican, who even talked about attending a bible study class during his explanation, asked for forgiveness over and over.

Hey. I’m not from South Carolina, but I could forgive him for having a human frailty. But what I can’t forgive is the hypocrisy of it all.

This comes on the heels of a similar announcement by Nevada Senator John Ensign of an affair, another holier than thou guy.

Both were listed as possible contenders for the 2012 presidential race.

And there have been countless others now, mostly Republicans of the religious right pursuasion.

The next time I hear a Republican religious right person accuse or imply others, usually Democrats, of being Godless and without moral compass, I will just want to say: “Oh shut up”!

I really would hope this spells the end of the power of the religious right in Republican politics. If it doesn’t, it might really spell the end of the Republican Party altogether. And that would be a disaster.

We desperately need the Republican Party and its history of a down to earth somewhat conservative approach to governing.

I think it can be saved by a resurgence of Republican moderatres with the help of some Republican libererals, if there are any left.

Religion and politics do not mix. Religion subverts politics and politics subverts religion.

Sanford originally put out the story via his staff that he was taking a trek on the Appalachian Trail. Apparently he really took off to Buenas Aires, Argentina. And he actually said during a press conference if I heard it right that he was “crying in Argentina”. Today he was asking for forgiveness from South Carolinians. So I guess he may have been saying in essence — don’t cry for me Argentina, but do cry for me South Carolina.

ADD 1:

Sanford went to Argentina to visit his girlfriend. He said he first met her eight years ago. The actual affair has been going on for a year. His wife has known for the last five months, he said. He has four sons.

Right and moral Republican that he is he spent Father’s Day weekend and the past week with his lover in Argentina.

“I’ve been crying for the last five days in Argentina”, he was quoted as saying (I only saw part of his news conference, although I thought I heard him say that and apparently he did). What with that Evita song “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” and the fact that yet another Republican has taken a fall from the moral wagon that ought to be good fodder for late night comedians, cable news satirists and political opponents of the nutty religious right.

(Thanks to CNN TV news, as well as CNN and Yahoo online news, as well as The State newspaper online out of Columbia, S.C. for info.)

ADD 2:

Sanford as a congressman was a harsh critic of President Bill Clinton for his infidelities and voted for his impeachment. Sen. Ensign criticized Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It’s kind of do as they preach not as they do with those right wing Christian fundamentalist Republicans. “Oh I have sinned” they cry Jimmy Swaggart sytle (and so did Democrat Clinton, I must concede, biting his lip as he did it). What I think they are crying about is that they got caught. 

ADD 3:

It’s the next day, Thursday, June 25, as I blog this add. I do not suggest that Republicans are any more prone to these sex scandals than Democrats. If you go back, the count is probably even. I recall now some of the latest, John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer (both Democrats), but as one columnist I read pointed out, the Republicans invite scorn upon themselves by portraying their party as the one with moral values. I’m all for morals, but for my part I think the Republicans would do well to drop the emphasis on them and play up their abilities at governance.

P.s.

The night before the news broke I was trying to look up columns of my late and favorite political satire writers to see if I could get an idea of how to do it. With material like this, who couldn’t? Can the real story be a satire of itself?


The unyielding and corrupt theocracy in Iran is a clue to what would happen if the religious right had its way in the U.S.

June 19, 2009

The only thing about which that I agree with the Ayatollah is that other nations, the U.S. in particular, should stay of Iran’s business (that is except for making sure they don’t get the bomb).

I say let them stew in their own juices. If the dissidents or whatever you call them can make headway in improving upon what semblance of democracy is present in Iran I say go for it, more power to them – just don’t get us involved (and I doubt that they would want our help).

So it’s fairly obvious by now, to make an understatement, that the presidential vote in Iran last week was a sham (instant results in counting millions of hand ballots). And today I read that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after blessing the results, then taking back his blessing by offering to have the government conduct some type of re-count (or partial re-count?), as a token accommodation to the opposition, now has re-blessed the elections and threatened to arrest anyone who disagrees and has forbade further demonstrations (and there have been reports that opposition members had already been arrested).

What happened to the re-count? Then again how would the government have conducted a re-count if it never conducted a count in the first place?

The last I heard the clergy was supposed to meet with the opposition Saturday, but now that the supreme leader has made it clear that it is either his way or the highway (to hell, or heaven, I suppose), what would be the point?

Iran has a strange system of government with supposedly democratic elections along with the power of the clergy to cancel out anything and everything done by supposedly elected leaders and the voters. It’s called a theocracy. It’s called a dictatorship.

But from what I understand from reading everything I can recently about the workings of politics in Iran most of the people there are quite happy to submit to the rule of religious despots. Even those who want more freedoms and want their votes to count still probably want the ultimate authority to be with the clergy – it’s all part of Islam.

And that folks – the way things work in Iran – might well be what it would be like here in the U.S. if the religious right were to ever completely have its way.

The American religious right likes to imply and is some cases claims outright that President Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, waiting for when the time is just right to declare the U.S. an Islamic republic. I doubt he will, but if he were to do that, what would be the difference between an “Islamic Republic” and a “Christian Republic”? Neither one has tolerance for divergent points of view. And who sets those points of view?

Religious leaders would have you believe that it is all written in the good book – the Holy (Christian) Bible or the Koran, for example (there are other religions and holy books).

Trouble is, the last I checked those books were printed and in fact written by mere mortals, even if they were done with divine inspiration.

I can’t speak for the other books, but one only has to read a little in the Holy Bible and realize that it is open to wide interpretation, with heavy use of symbolism and parables and such. There’s also confusion because it has been interpreted from more than one ancient language. Those who will tell you that certain passages mean a certain thing and that there is no other meaning will also offer their proof by saying such things as it is so because they know it to be and that they have faith and that only if you would have faith you would agree with them.

Why could one not counter that he or she believes a different thing and that only if they all had faith everyone would believe likewise?

There are people who cite visions, but that is generally considered dubious, because visions and the performance of miracles are apparently limited to ancient history (well sometimes it is accepted when someone claims they had a vision as long as they leave everyone the wiggle room that they only meant such in some kind of figurative way, that is you are not compelled to think they actually saw a parting of the heavens, but just felt strongly at the moment).

(And I offer this disclosure: no I did not have a vision, but although I have not actively practiced religion in my life, having been brought up by well meaning and well behaved non-believers, I am open to it, have prayed and have been prayed for by many – my sincere thanks.)

Getting back to Iran, what is going on there is fascinating and it seems a momentous confrontation is brewing for Saturday (or not) what with the Ayatollah laying down the gauntlet.

And if I may, I pray that it not all end in some type of bloodbath, and I also pray that the will of the people wins out in Iran. But again, that is entirely their business.


Aside from us being blackmailed for billions, I like Obama approach to Muslim world…

June 5, 2009

At the end of my last blog I wrote something to the effect that I would like to go back over any details of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world to see if there was anything I might have missed or that I would disagree with and that I would be interested in world reaction.

After reading the official White House transcript, complete with notations of applause and someone blurting out “Barack Obama we love you!” and the president saying “thank you”, I concluded that I had indeed heard the speech in its entirety and I did not find anything particularly objectionable, save his promise to provide billions of dollars for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in even that I can accept the concept, just don’t see how we can afford it.

So, my plan here is to go down through the transcript, paragraph by paragraph, and make some comments. Before that, I note that as of this time it seems overall world reaction, particularly among the target audience, the Muslims, seems to have been quite receptive and quite good. And, as I expected, his biggest detractors were the American far right (you know, those folks who love to hate and love torture) and some Muslim extremists (you know, those folks who love to hate and love to torture).

And now the paragraph by paragraph analysis of the transcript of his speech:

The president greeted his audience at the Cario (Egypt) University and noted that for a thousand years it has been a “beacon of learning”, and he said he carried with him a greeting from Islamic communities in the U.S.: “Assalaamu alaykum” (Peace be upon you), to which he received enthusiastic applause.

Later on a talk show someone commented that it is good that he spoke at a university and there were a lot of young people in the audience, and it was said that it is a mis-perception that terrorists come out of only the poverty-stricken class. In fact, many, including the 9/11 terrorists, are highly educated.

And I realize now that commenting on each paragraph or each line is too tedious, but I am going to arrange my commentary in descending order of the transcript paragraphs.

He noted that there are great tensions between the Muslim world and the U.S. (And the whole Western world) and he acknowledged the role colonialism played in all of this and the fact that the best interests of the inhabitants were not looked after and that in the Cold War Muslim country’s were treated as proxies in the struggle between the West and the communist block nations (although he did not actually mention the communist nations or the former Soviet Union). But anyone who has any grasp of recent history knows that it was all about the competition between primarily the U.S. and the Soviet Union for influence in the Middle East and other areas of the world. The president also said that Islamic traditions were not always respected. And I think that the fact that President Obama recognized Islamic traditions and even used some Islamic phrases and quotations from the Koran is a major deal. You do not have to adopt someone’s religion to respect it. And this recognition, a show of respect, plays big in the Muslim world.

And the president said that he had come to Cairo to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”. And that “new beginning” phrase I note was used in headlines around the world – pretty powerful stuff.

To show his sincerity, Obama noted that although he is a self-professed Christian, he has Islamic roots in his family and lived in a Muslim country (Indonesia) and heard the morning and evening prayer calls (he did not say, but I think it is correct that he attended a Muslim-run school for a time). He also said that he worked among Muslims in Chicago neighborhoods. I don’t know if he meant members of the “Black Muslim” sect or just Muslims in general. But it does demonstrate his unique ability to connect with Muslims. And it shows that he is an adept politician in that he downplayed (had to ) his Muslim roots and connections during his presidential campaign (does anyone think that in this day and age anyone who even hinted he might be a Muslim could be elected president of the U.S.?). I think it is a de facto requirement at present in the U.S. that one be a Christian or profess to be in order to get elected president (that might change some day – stranger things have happened, like the election of Obama).

He noted how the whole world is interconnected and thus has mutual interests. In the global economy all nations suffer at a downturn. Disease threatens all. Nuclear weapons threaten all.

And I’ll jump in here and note that just going chronologically doesn’t work here either. So I will jump to the fact that he said that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but that developing nuclear weapons, no. And that is the great irony we have come to and these are my words. The U.S. was the first to develop nuclear weapons and the only nation to ever use them. They are so terrible we are stuck with the quite necessary and difficult task of doing everything we can to make sure no one else who has not already got hold of nuclear weapons does.

President Obama assured his audience that the U.S. in not at war with Islam. I note here that even George W. Bush said the same (but the overall tone from his administration and those who so adamantly supported his policies made it seem otherwise).

In probably one of the most important parts of the speech as far as U.S. policy and justification for it, Obama made it clear that the U.S. was and is justified in going after Al Qaeda (and other extremists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan as the result of the 9/11. He noted with some force and even anguish in his voice that nearly 3,000 innocent people in the U.S. were killed on 9/11.

And then he turned around and said that on the other hand, while we felt compelled to invade Afghanistan (because the 9/11 extremists were based there), our government (then headed by Bush) chose to go into Iraq and that there was much controversy within the U.S. at the time over that. Obama, who had been on record as against the Iraq invasion, implied in his speech that the U.S. made a mistake in doing so and had learned a costly lesson. I think that he essentially admitted that the U.S. had over reached in its rightful authority in Iraq (and I realize that arguments could be made either way on all of this, but in the end, the Iraq invasion does seem to have been a blunder – and even if it all works out, that does not make it right).

The president also proclaimed that the U.S. seeks no permanent military presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And I think that is a major policy statement.

President Obama said that he has unequivocally made his position clear that the U.S. will no longer use torture (so I do not know what Dick Cheney meant when he claimed recently in his own defense that even Obama had reserved the right to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” — the right wing nut euphemism for torture). That is a powerful statement that hopefully puts the U.S. back on the high ground of humanity (if we become as ruthless as the terrorists, what do we have left worth saving?).

One part that bothered me was that he pledged several billions of dollars to build schools and hospitals and infrastructure and in economic support for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now probably that is a good idea in that folks with a better standard of living and a better standard thanks to us might be less inclined to become terrorists against us. But it also seems that we are being blackmailed here and there is a question in my mind: who needs this money more? folks over there or folks here at home? (Does not charity begin at home?) But that is the great quandary we always find ourselves in as the world superpower (and one wonders how long at this rate we can hold on to that claim).

And maybe the biggest thing president Obama proclaimed in U.S. foreign policy was his insistence on a two-state solution for the 61-years-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his insistence that Israel quit expanding its settlements into Palestinian territory. And I say, what other solution is there to all that and why have we not insisted on that all along?

He said he supported women’s rights and the right of women to education, which is significant in that conservative Muslims often deny such rights to women (but I note that conservative Christians in this country often put down the idea of women’s rights and seem to promote the idea that women must be subservient to men – it’s all biblical, you know).

President Obama also said that although the U.S. prefers democracy and the rule of law it would only promote its form of government rather than force it upon other nations. But I have to note that wouldn’t it be heck if after all of this that Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance, would wind up with hardline Islamic governments ruled by religious leaders without regard to human rights?

I probably missed some things to comment upon after all, but I’ve probably already gone on too long.

Personally, even though a cable news commentator said his speech contained no real policy statements, I think it was the strongest and most reasonable foreign policy speech I have ever heard from a U.S. president (and even though I was young at the time, my memory goes back to hearing Dwight David Eisenhower).


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.