Morality, Religion & Philosophy: July 2008 Archives
Two days ago President Bush met with Bob Fu from the China Aid Association and received an Olympic Prayer Band bracelet distributed by Voice of the Martyrs.
Today in The White House Residence, President Bush met with five Chinese freedom activists to discuss his concerns about human rights in China. The President assured them that he will carry the message of freedom as he travels to Beijing for the games, just as he has regularly made this a priority in all of his meetings with Chinese officials. He told the activists that engagement with Chinese leaders gives him an opportunity to make the United States' position clear - human rights and religious freedom should not be denied to anyone.
Sounds good, but I wish that religious freedom were as high on the bilateral agenda as economic issues.
Update:
Looks like the White House reads Master of None.
Ezra Levant has written a fascinating pair (so far) of posts about his recent testimony before Congress' human rights caucus. The first contains some background and the transcript of his prepared remarks, and the second reveals Islam's plans to use the Western legal system to institute Sharia law, as related by a diplomat from Pakistan.
She wants Western countries to ban critical comments about Islam -- and she mentioned the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in particular. It was well pointed out by others on the panel that Western defamation law deals with the vindication of improperly besmirched reputations using the truth, as determined by courts of law -- but when it comes to clashing religions, the truth of any faith is in the heart of the beholder. The only legal system that would hold the Koran to be "the truth", and subordinate every other faith beneath the Koranic truth, would be a sharia legal system, such as that in Saudi Arabia. In other words, she wants to replace our secular legal systems with a Muslim legal system. I appreciated the honesty.Western defamation law is also about vindication of an individual's reputation -- the individual must be indentified; he must have suffered measurable damage. Defamation is not about hurt feelings -- it is about the unjustified destruction of one's reputation in the eyes of another. It has nothing to do with tender feelings, though that was the grievance cited most often by Fatima. ...
But the single most revealing comment I heard all day about this matter was from a State Department lawyer on the panel (whose name I wish to confirm before publishing it.) She has done meticulous research on the Muslim campaign to ban criticism of Islam, and has helped develop the U.S. response to the idea in international legal forums.
She went deep into the issue: she looked at the Arabic word used by Muslim diplomats when describing the "defamation of Islam" that they sought to illegalize. She consulted scholars of Arabic who confirmed for her that the particular legal phrase had been coined very recently, especially for the international diplomatic campaign -- and that, when discussed domestically, Muslim countries used the real Arabic words they mean: the traditional words for blasphemy.
Muslims want to use our defamation laws to ban blasphemy against Allah, but they know that if they didn't use the codewords "defamation of Islam" they wouldn't get very far.
Next time CAIR or some other domestic Islamist group complains about religious persecution because one of us infidels looks at them sideways maybe we should take them more seriously -- after all, Muslims are the world's experts on religious persecution.
IRANChristian Detained on Terrorism Charges - Forum 18 News
On June 3, a newly converted Christian couple in Iran was arrested by police for holding Bible studies with Muslims in their home, and attending a house church. According to Compass Direct News, “Makan Arya and Tina Rad were seized from their home in east Tehran after one of Makan's relatives informed security police of the couple's Christian activities. Their 4-year-old daughter was left behind, ill and unattended. The couple was taken to an unknown jail where they were severely beaten and interrogated for four days.” Compass reported, “Makan was accused of ‘activities against national security’ and Tina of ‘activities against the holy religion of Islam.’ The authorities threatened to take their daughter away to a religious institution and warned they could be imprisoned on charges of apostasy or fabricated drug charges if they didn't stop their Christian work.” The report added that eventually the couple was pressured into signing a statement claiming they had not changed their religion from Islam and promising that they would stay away from their house church and other Christians. “After a court hearing, Makan was freed on bail charges of US $19,634 and Tina upon payment of US $29,451. The couple returned home to find that the window of their shop had been smashed by local Muslims. On June 23, Makan received a letter threatening him with continued attacks if he did not put up evidence of his Islamic faith on the front of his shop, to which he responded by hanging pictures of Muslim leaders on his window,” Compass added. Ask God to strengthen the hearts of these believers to proclaim His Name without hesitation or fear. Pray for healing, especially for Tina who currently cannot walk as a result of her mistreatment in detention. Luke 6:27-28
Muslims in the West should exert as much energy denouncing real persecution in their homelands as they do complaining about slights here.
David Harsanyi has an absolutely brilliant take on the righteousness of self-interest and the right to the "pursuit of happiness" we celebrate on Independence Day.
What we definitely "must" be is selfless — like Obama, who often recounts his own righteous journey. Spurning high-paying gigs on Wall Street, Obama hit the Chicago pavement as a crusading community organizer . . . and then, in meticulous detail, wrote a book about his awesome sacrifice and raked in millions.Obama claims this experience also opened his eyes to a "citizenship that was meaningful." (Unlike yours.) Imagine if everyone wanted a "meaningful" job? Who would support these quixotic crusaders? Doesn't someone need to produce wealth?
One could easily argue, in fact, that a reviled Chicago commodities trader — one who churns investments, creates jobs and pays exorbitant taxes (to allow "public" service to exist) — is more beneficial for society than an organizer.
Still, Obama has stated that public service will be the "central cause" of his presidency.
As Harsanyi points out, America would probably be a better place if we had more people with jobs and fewer "community organizers".
(HT: Instapundit.)
Moldbug explains the Supreme Court concisely. We like to think we're ruled by the law, but:
All governments are governments of men. If final decisions are taken by a council of nine, these nine are the nine who rule. Whether you call them a court, a junta or a politburo is irrelevant.
(HT: Arnold Kling.)
