I suppose I really wasn’t too surprised to hear political pundits on both sides talking about “political civility” following the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords on January 8, 2011 (20 people were shot, of whom six died, including a nine year old girl). Democrats and Republicans, for one brief flickering moment, agreed that the political rhetoric needed to be turned down. What is supposed to be adult discussions has long ago morphed into schoolyard taunting with ever increasing hatefulness in tone, and sometimes action.
The problem with this temporary truce was that no longer had it been uttered, than the “if only” inserted itself into the conversation. Originally the Democrats accused the accused murderer, Jared Lee Longhner, of being a Rightwing stooge being manipulated, at least indirectly, by the “Great Rightwing Conspiracy” and its evil overlords, former Governor Sarah Palin, and conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. The Republicans and those on political Right cited examples which claimed that Longhner was actually a left-leaning wacko and it really was the fault pseudo-socialist Left (amusingly, both sides largely cited the same “evidence” such as past comments, videos, music, books he likes, and quotes from friends taken out of context to support their claims).
In that brief moment of lucidity, the Left and Right agreed that the shootings were perhaps inevitable because of the level political discourse in this country. It’s become just plain ole mean and hateful. However, both sides just couldn’t leave it at that. Nope. They took it one step further and said that if only the …insert political party’s name here… would back off; turn it down and listen to reason, everything would be better. Of course, the finger pointing (use your own imagination as to which finger was being pointed most often) began all over again.
Have we, as a society, progressed (or perhaps regressed may be more accurate) to the point where we are incapable of civil debate? There was a time and not that long ago, where both sides could engage in vigorous discussions and yet at the end of day, remain at least cordial to each other. Sure, I recognized this is politics. I’ve been in it for over 35 years. It’s a full contact sport. I’ve bloodied some noses and had mine bloodied a few times too. But even in sports, there’s such a thing as sportsmanship. Now, our so-called “leaders” talk over each other in what at times amounts to shouting matches. We have some very serious problems in this country and they’re growing to the point where hard and unpopular choices must be made.
Do we really have time for mean-spirited and petty partisanship? Personally, I don’t think so. I don’t care what platform you choose to run on. Pick a political banner and fly it high. However, once they take that oath of office their only obligation is to the American Taxpayer. Period. They are no longer a Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian. The only initials behind their name that they need to care about should be “USA”. They are public servants and hold that position at our discretion, not their party’s. And by the way, they were elected to serve all the people equally, not just one segment of it (I’m taking about racial and ethnic caucuses here, which need to be disbanded).
So, when the Democrats or Republican start with this civility rhetoric again, they need to look in the mirror first. Americans are onto their tricks and beyond being sick and tired of the usual political grandstanding. Politicians are often the last to recognize the change in political winds. Those who do, often go on to greatness. Those who don’t usually fade into oblivion at best. The winds in America have changed, and it is no longer blowing Left or Right.
The Politics of Food
There’s been several articles of late about the economics (and politics) of food. They always seem fall on the heels of recent weather related disasters such as blinding snow storms along the US East Coast, the flooding in California and Australia, and the perpetual disasters which seem to befall Africa and Southeast Asia.
The question which comes to mind first is what can “we” do? Well, there are a large number of charities out there who will be more than happy to feed your guilt and take your money (a few feature images of adorable looking ragamuffins staring blankly into camera with some overweight host calling them by name and asking what “you” will do to “save” them). Of course, the US government pours billions of dollars annually into these same countries year after year with little, if any, progress (several other advanced industrial nations also add to that total by hundreds of millions of dollars), which raises another question, why?
Well, as with most questions of this nature, the answers are often interrelated, but often have just a few common denominators. A few of these countries are situated in areas that are natural disaster magnets (such as Bangladesh for instance). Others are natural resource deficient. As a result, sizable portions of the population are migratory. They use up available resources in one area and move on, only to return later. Some groups have been very successful at this such as the Bedouins of the Middle East. Many, however, are not migratory as a result of tradition, but because of war and ethnic cleaning (which is a politically correct word for genocide). This is especially true in parts of Africa. They have unsustainable populations because of lack of birth control education and resources, cultural bias toward birth control and women (often rape is actually a rite of male passage and even openly celebrated. Condoms are made unusable), or their religion requires them to forgo birth control methods even to their own determent (notably the Roman Catholic Church).
As a result of tribal or nationalized wars and terrorist acts, once arable land, suitable for farming is decimated. Water is polluted. Diseases become rampant. Doctors are a rarity. There are simply too few doctors and medical facilities. Sanitation is often basic. Medicines are rationed. Many doctors weary of the never ending lines and perpetual lack of resources and leave. Another common feature is the populations tend to be uneducated. As a result, there are few if any jobs. What few jobs exist are back breaking and often times brutal; little more than slavery (which is still common in Asia and Africa). Why are there few schools?
Schools are often destroyed. Teachers are beaten and chased off. Some are murdered. Those few who remain, like the doctors, deal with a lack of resources, and are often subject to the whims of the ruling clique, who restrict who and what is taught. An educated populace is a dangerous thing to dictatorships, which leads to the next common feature. Many of these countries have a history of violent military juntas and corrupt governments. Some masquerade as democracies. Some are just in your face military dictatorships that came to power based on tribal loyalties under the pretense of this or that political ideology. Much of the imported food and other resources are locked away; to be used for bribery or sold outright. Very little of the populace actually receives any assistance. As long as West (and East) continues to send these industrial sized handouts, the juntas and corrupt leaders remain in power.
Today, the world faces increasing food and water shortages. Whole populations are not just shifting from one corner of a country to another or slipping borders, but crossing continents. Many are leaving Southeast Asia and moving north into China, India, and Turkey. Those in Africa are crossing into Europe. America is feeling the effects of millions of illegal immigrants coming north from South and Central America, and Mexico. The result is greater strain on the host countries, which, in long term, will collapse under the shear weight of number. What is at stake here is the survival of entire nations.
The liberals on the Left would have us open our doors and blindly accept the onslaught. All we have to do is accept a new lower quality of life amid crushing taxes and a loss of national identity. The conservative Right would have us round them up and ship them home, only to repeat the process lest some wall or mount saves us a-la-Fortress Europe of the Third Reich. Like so many of our domestic issues, we tend to think about solving global ones in terms of “Left” or “Right”; all or nothing. I think the time has come for not just Americans, but nations to take off their ideological blinders and examine issues based on existing facts as they are, not as our ideologies want them to be.
Finally, here’s a great article I came across on MSNBC by John W. Schoen which illustrates my point. Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41062817/ns/business-consumer_news
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
What is America's Future?
I just read an interesting article by Jim Angle at Fox News.com called "Baby Boomers Could Force Economic Catastrophe", and it got me to thinking. It seems that no matter what, analyists of all stripes are predicting that America is in for a major financial meltdown. It could be from an overload of our public safety net by illegal immigrants; loss of jobs through downsizing, technology, or exportation; trade deficit and devaluing of the dollar; the national debt load and over expansion of government; the financial incompentency of Wallstreet and the banking industry; a drain on resources through war and natural disasters brought on by global warming (and for all practical purposes, it does really matter if global warming is the result of Manmade pollution or part of a natural cycle or some combination. The results are the same---disaster). So, here is yet another crack in financial dyke, the Babyboomer's pending retirement (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/11/baby-boomers-could-force-economic-catastrophe#).
So, what is the end result? A dictatorship of the Left (or indirect rule by China, which is the largest holder of our national debt)? A dictatorship of the Right? A Military Junta? The establishment of the corporate oligarchy (some say we're already well on our way to this)? A theocracy? Anarchy? A broken America into two or more nations much like the Roman Empire or even the Holy Roman Empire experienced (perhaps triggered by a Civil War or revolution).
Do we remain the world's single greatest superpower? Do we become a second rate or even third world economic power? Some predict, as alluded to above, that there will be a small but extremely wealthy corporate oligarchy at the top, which will be propped up by a nationalized police force. The bulk of America will be a second tier economic class with large pockets that are no better than any third world nation, controlled by large well armed drug lords; essentially to two tier class structure within a police state.
A bleak picture to be sure. Still, I wonder if that has to be the outcome? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have a great deal of faith in my fellow Americans for the capacity in overcoming just about anything, including corporate greed, thugs, and an inept government.
So, what is the end result? A dictatorship of the Left (or indirect rule by China, which is the largest holder of our national debt)? A dictatorship of the Right? A Military Junta? The establishment of the corporate oligarchy (some say we're already well on our way to this)? A theocracy? Anarchy? A broken America into two or more nations much like the Roman Empire or even the Holy Roman Empire experienced (perhaps triggered by a Civil War or revolution).
Do we remain the world's single greatest superpower? Do we become a second rate or even third world economic power? Some predict, as alluded to above, that there will be a small but extremely wealthy corporate oligarchy at the top, which will be propped up by a nationalized police force. The bulk of America will be a second tier economic class with large pockets that are no better than any third world nation, controlled by large well armed drug lords; essentially to two tier class structure within a police state.
A bleak picture to be sure. Still, I wonder if that has to be the outcome? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have a great deal of faith in my fellow Americans for the capacity in overcoming just about anything, including corporate greed, thugs, and an inept government.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
After Don't Ask Don't Tell: Gay Marriage?
The Conservative Right may have dug themselves into a very deep hole. As I last reported, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, which was first enacted by Democrat President Bill Clinton, has been repealed. Although technically “illegal” until the appropriate bureaucratic steps are completed, it’s now essentially legal to be openly gay in the US military (there are already 23 other countries where gays openly serve in the military. So much for that ole “first in freedom” line I suppose).
So, here’s the next quandary for the Republicans and the Conservative Right (especially for the socially Conservative). If it’s now ok to volunteer to fight, and possibly die or become disabled in the defense of this country, why isn’t ok to marry the person they love regardless of their gender? Now I can just see some finger wagging Conservative hyperventilating and accusing me of not being “pure enough” to be a Conservative and that’s ok. It’s a “relatively’ free country at the moment, but it also doesn’t change the argument.
Vice President Biden recently said that he would support a measure to make gay marriage legal, which in my opinion is no big deal. I personally couldn’t care less what Biden thinks, but it does give some indication as to which way the White House will lean on the issue. Of course, “Hollyweird” and “Left Coast” has long been a proponent of gay marriage and all things liberal. Perhaps more important that the Vice President’s opinion is Oprah’s opinion, and she is an ardent supporter of gay marriage.
On a personal level, I’ve always believed that marriage should be between a man and woman. When I ran for State Representative in 2004, the issue of allowing gay marriage was on the ballot, and I, for one, opposed it. My opponent, Denver Butler, a Democrat and perhaps more tellingly, a conservative Catholic, opposed it too. In fact, you were hard pressed to find anyone outside of Jefferson County (Louisville) who supported it (it was hard to even find someone in Jefferson County, which is perhaps the most “liberal” of Kentucky’s 120 counties, who supported it. The issue failed overwhelmingly by the way). My logic was that marriage was something that formed the nucleus of society; the very foundation of civilization itself. People got married for the purpose of creating and raising a family; passing on knowledge; adding to the workforce; it created familial units which in turn, created villages, communities, towns, and cities. All this, of course, increased the exchange of ideas and thus, systems of government and religions were created. Well, I’m sure you get my point.
However, in looking back at history, I found the gay relationships openly existed. In fact, they were generally quite common. The Sumerians had them. So did the Babylonians. The Hittites and Assyrians, both notably militaristic, had them, as did the Persians and Greeks (remember Alexander the Great?). Even the mighty Roman Empire had openly gay relationships. On the other hand, I didn’t find any evidence that the Egyptians did or for the matter, the Chinese. In fact, some ancient civilizations down right forbid it on pain of death, such as the Huns, Vandals, Mongols, Goths, Norse, Celts, and Germanic tribes.
Of particular importance was that I didn’t find mention of acceptance among the certain nomadic Semite tribes, such as the Hebrews. Their reasoning, as was the Egyptians by the way, was that the desired outcome of a sexual encounter was to produce offspring, which was seen as a form of wealth in what was an agricultural or nomadic society. It seems to me that gay relationship seemed to be more openly accepted as the complexity of a given society increased and/or became more settled.
In today’s society, relationships are not always about procreation any more. They are just as often about companionship or financial arrangements. Technology has made knowledge available to everyone equally. As we become more global, we are exposed to more cultural traditions and religions. No longer are we just Judeo-Christian society. As such, does society therefore have a right or obligation to impose what is chiefly Judeo-Christian values system onto others? There’s a tenet in the ancient nature oriented religion of Wicca which says “Do as you will, but do not harm to others”. Should an otherwise upstanding individual be denied what you and I take for granted, that is, the legal right to share our lives with whomever we chose? We’ve agreed they have the right to fight and die for the freedoms this country stands for, and yet we as a society have said that they don’t have the right to legal relationship with someone of the same gender.
Of course, there are many other issues to consider, such as the right of survivorship, insurance coverage, healthcare coverage, joint ownership of property, a tax deduction, right to adopt, etc. By repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the GOP and its Conservative allies, have opened Pandora’s Box, and perhaps it’s a box which needs to be opened. Certainly, we as a society need to reexamine what constitutes a legal as well as moral relationship and what, if any, are its boundaries.
The Gouge Gage
As just about every holiday traveler will tell you, gas prices across the country are outrageous. The AAA reported on 12/10/10 that the average price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.98. A week before, it was eight cents cheaper? So what happened in one week to see that kind of an increase? Well, oil company officials will tell you some cockamamie story about a price adjustment due to oil production on a rig in BFG being affected by the flight pattern of birds. The truth as you and I know is much simpler. It was an opportunity to gouge consumers while knowing damn good and well that the government won’t do a thing to interfere. In fact, it’s government’s job to clear the way for the oil companies by creating the illusion of “protecting” us.
Former Shell Oil Chief, John Hofmeister predicted that by 2012, the price of a gallon of gas will be $5.00. He’s not far off the mark. Already, the average price where I live is over $3.00 a gallon. People who are making at or just above minimum wage are already talking about it becoming to expensive to go to work. With bus routes being cut, what are lower income people supposed to do? I don’t see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. I see this simply as corporate greed running amuck and being all but sanctioned by the government. Perhaps the time to nationalize the oil industry is about to dawn.
A few months ago I reviewd a book by Dr. Ida Lichter entitled “Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression” which is published by Prometheus Books, New York. If you haven’t read it yet, you seriously need to. This is perhaps one of the most important books ever written about conservative Islam and its treatment of women you’ll ever read. Recently, Dr. Lichter wrote an article for the Huffington Post (12/20/10) about an often overlooked relgious group, the Bahai and the human rights violations they suffer daily in Iran. I thought you would find the article as compelling as I did.
Baha’is in Iran are Easily Forgotten
Wikileaks has revealed government and diplomatic violations of the truth while paradoxically keeping their own sources secret. In the process, editor in chief and whistleblower Julian Assange has become a hero for human rights defenders. Sadly, the intense publicity surrounding Wikileaks diverts attention from serious injustice and continuing human rights violations, some already on the back burner and badly neglected. A good example is the state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is in Iran.
The 300,000-strong Baha'i community, the largest religious minority in Iran, represents less than 1% of the population. Over the past 30 years, they have suffered torture and execution. They have been denied tertiary education and government jobs, their shops and properties are often seized, cemeteries desecrated and children harassed at school. In addition, Bahai's are facing stepped-up persecution and have been falsely blamed for organizing and inciting anti-government protests although they abstain from partisan political activity on religious principles. Charges against them include espionage, "propaganda activities against the Islamic order" and "corruption on earth," the latter a capital offence. Baha'i communities around the world insist these charges are spurious and part of a campaign to scapegoat members of the faith.
During the Shah's era, Baha'is strove for education and became successful and prominent, creating envy and suspicion, and although police sometimes protected them against Islamic extremists, they were victims of periodic outbreaks of violence.
A major source of ideological friction with Islam is the doctrine of a hierarchy of traditions that subsumes previous ones. According to Baha'is, the Prophet Mohammad was not the last prophet but one in a progressive line, and the next one is not due for a thousand years!
Women's rights are central to Baha'i teaching and in stark contrast to the discriminatory sharia laws implemented by the Islamic Republic of Iran. These rights include full support for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
There are numerous documented stories of violent arrests and incarcerations in the hundreds of prisons situated in basements of houses in Tehran.
Rozita Vasseghi is a Baha'i prisoner. In Kafkaesque fashion, a man claiming to be a 'postman' arrested her three years ago after a knock on the door, and during repeated interrogations while blindfolded, her captors threatened her with death. Throughout her ordeal, she was denied a lawyer. Following release from prison, she found a job but government authorities exerted pressure on her employers to have her fired. A few years later, she was arrested at her home, and for the next six months, found herself in solitary confinement. Her elderly mother, who was allowed visits of only five minutes, was horrified by her wasted appearance. Accused of insulting Islam, acting against national security and teaching the Baha'i religion, she is serving a five-year sentence.
Rozita's sister Rosa, suffered multiple incarcerations before escaping Iran. She was on her way home in a shared public taxi when the driver asked about her religion. Discovering she was a Baha'i, he stopped and made a phone call. A car with several people soon showed up, the women fully covered in chadors. Rosa was blindfolded and forced into the vehicle and when they reached their destination, she was thrown onto the pavement, her hands were tied and she was dragged down stairs to a room and beaten. Her captors repeatedly called her an infidel and declared her blood would be impure until she renounced her faith and converted to Islam. Over several years, she was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned.
As proponents of a religion originating from Islam, stamped by modernity, universal human rights and compatibility with many Western values, Baha'is are vulnerable targets for persecution by the Iranian theocracy. Baha'i women are doubly at risk, being female and Baha'i, and as victims of severe injustice, they deserve more outrage and support than Assange and Wikileaks.
Ida Lichter is the author of Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression, published by Prometheus Books, New York.
So, here’s the next quandary for the Republicans and the Conservative Right (especially for the socially Conservative). If it’s now ok to volunteer to fight, and possibly die or become disabled in the defense of this country, why isn’t ok to marry the person they love regardless of their gender? Now I can just see some finger wagging Conservative hyperventilating and accusing me of not being “pure enough” to be a Conservative and that’s ok. It’s a “relatively’ free country at the moment, but it also doesn’t change the argument.
Vice President Biden recently said that he would support a measure to make gay marriage legal, which in my opinion is no big deal. I personally couldn’t care less what Biden thinks, but it does give some indication as to which way the White House will lean on the issue. Of course, “Hollyweird” and “Left Coast” has long been a proponent of gay marriage and all things liberal. Perhaps more important that the Vice President’s opinion is Oprah’s opinion, and she is an ardent supporter of gay marriage.
On a personal level, I’ve always believed that marriage should be between a man and woman. When I ran for State Representative in 2004, the issue of allowing gay marriage was on the ballot, and I, for one, opposed it. My opponent, Denver Butler, a Democrat and perhaps more tellingly, a conservative Catholic, opposed it too. In fact, you were hard pressed to find anyone outside of Jefferson County (Louisville) who supported it (it was hard to even find someone in Jefferson County, which is perhaps the most “liberal” of Kentucky’s 120 counties, who supported it. The issue failed overwhelmingly by the way). My logic was that marriage was something that formed the nucleus of society; the very foundation of civilization itself. People got married for the purpose of creating and raising a family; passing on knowledge; adding to the workforce; it created familial units which in turn, created villages, communities, towns, and cities. All this, of course, increased the exchange of ideas and thus, systems of government and religions were created. Well, I’m sure you get my point.
However, in looking back at history, I found the gay relationships openly existed. In fact, they were generally quite common. The Sumerians had them. So did the Babylonians. The Hittites and Assyrians, both notably militaristic, had them, as did the Persians and Greeks (remember Alexander the Great?). Even the mighty Roman Empire had openly gay relationships. On the other hand, I didn’t find any evidence that the Egyptians did or for the matter, the Chinese. In fact, some ancient civilizations down right forbid it on pain of death, such as the Huns, Vandals, Mongols, Goths, Norse, Celts, and Germanic tribes.
Of particular importance was that I didn’t find mention of acceptance among the certain nomadic Semite tribes, such as the Hebrews. Their reasoning, as was the Egyptians by the way, was that the desired outcome of a sexual encounter was to produce offspring, which was seen as a form of wealth in what was an agricultural or nomadic society. It seems to me that gay relationship seemed to be more openly accepted as the complexity of a given society increased and/or became more settled.
In today’s society, relationships are not always about procreation any more. They are just as often about companionship or financial arrangements. Technology has made knowledge available to everyone equally. As we become more global, we are exposed to more cultural traditions and religions. No longer are we just Judeo-Christian society. As such, does society therefore have a right or obligation to impose what is chiefly Judeo-Christian values system onto others? There’s a tenet in the ancient nature oriented religion of Wicca which says “Do as you will, but do not harm to others”. Should an otherwise upstanding individual be denied what you and I take for granted, that is, the legal right to share our lives with whomever we chose? We’ve agreed they have the right to fight and die for the freedoms this country stands for, and yet we as a society have said that they don’t have the right to legal relationship with someone of the same gender.
Of course, there are many other issues to consider, such as the right of survivorship, insurance coverage, healthcare coverage, joint ownership of property, a tax deduction, right to adopt, etc. By repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the GOP and its Conservative allies, have opened Pandora’s Box, and perhaps it’s a box which needs to be opened. Certainly, we as a society need to reexamine what constitutes a legal as well as moral relationship and what, if any, are its boundaries.
The Gouge Gage
As just about every holiday traveler will tell you, gas prices across the country are outrageous. The AAA reported on 12/10/10 that the average price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.98. A week before, it was eight cents cheaper? So what happened in one week to see that kind of an increase? Well, oil company officials will tell you some cockamamie story about a price adjustment due to oil production on a rig in BFG being affected by the flight pattern of birds. The truth as you and I know is much simpler. It was an opportunity to gouge consumers while knowing damn good and well that the government won’t do a thing to interfere. In fact, it’s government’s job to clear the way for the oil companies by creating the illusion of “protecting” us.
Former Shell Oil Chief, John Hofmeister predicted that by 2012, the price of a gallon of gas will be $5.00. He’s not far off the mark. Already, the average price where I live is over $3.00 a gallon. People who are making at or just above minimum wage are already talking about it becoming to expensive to go to work. With bus routes being cut, what are lower income people supposed to do? I don’t see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. I see this simply as corporate greed running amuck and being all but sanctioned by the government. Perhaps the time to nationalize the oil industry is about to dawn.
A few months ago I reviewd a book by Dr. Ida Lichter entitled “Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression” which is published by Prometheus Books, New York. If you haven’t read it yet, you seriously need to. This is perhaps one of the most important books ever written about conservative Islam and its treatment of women you’ll ever read. Recently, Dr. Lichter wrote an article for the Huffington Post (12/20/10) about an often overlooked relgious group, the Bahai and the human rights violations they suffer daily in Iran. I thought you would find the article as compelling as I did.
Baha’is in Iran are Easily Forgotten
Wikileaks has revealed government and diplomatic violations of the truth while paradoxically keeping their own sources secret. In the process, editor in chief and whistleblower Julian Assange has become a hero for human rights defenders. Sadly, the intense publicity surrounding Wikileaks diverts attention from serious injustice and continuing human rights violations, some already on the back burner and badly neglected. A good example is the state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is in Iran.
The 300,000-strong Baha'i community, the largest religious minority in Iran, represents less than 1% of the population. Over the past 30 years, they have suffered torture and execution. They have been denied tertiary education and government jobs, their shops and properties are often seized, cemeteries desecrated and children harassed at school. In addition, Bahai's are facing stepped-up persecution and have been falsely blamed for organizing and inciting anti-government protests although they abstain from partisan political activity on religious principles. Charges against them include espionage, "propaganda activities against the Islamic order" and "corruption on earth," the latter a capital offence. Baha'i communities around the world insist these charges are spurious and part of a campaign to scapegoat members of the faith.
During the Shah's era, Baha'is strove for education and became successful and prominent, creating envy and suspicion, and although police sometimes protected them against Islamic extremists, they were victims of periodic outbreaks of violence.
A major source of ideological friction with Islam is the doctrine of a hierarchy of traditions that subsumes previous ones. According to Baha'is, the Prophet Mohammad was not the last prophet but one in a progressive line, and the next one is not due for a thousand years!
Women's rights are central to Baha'i teaching and in stark contrast to the discriminatory sharia laws implemented by the Islamic Republic of Iran. These rights include full support for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
There are numerous documented stories of violent arrests and incarcerations in the hundreds of prisons situated in basements of houses in Tehran.
Rozita Vasseghi is a Baha'i prisoner. In Kafkaesque fashion, a man claiming to be a 'postman' arrested her three years ago after a knock on the door, and during repeated interrogations while blindfolded, her captors threatened her with death. Throughout her ordeal, she was denied a lawyer. Following release from prison, she found a job but government authorities exerted pressure on her employers to have her fired. A few years later, she was arrested at her home, and for the next six months, found herself in solitary confinement. Her elderly mother, who was allowed visits of only five minutes, was horrified by her wasted appearance. Accused of insulting Islam, acting against national security and teaching the Baha'i religion, she is serving a five-year sentence.
Rozita's sister Rosa, suffered multiple incarcerations before escaping Iran. She was on her way home in a shared public taxi when the driver asked about her religion. Discovering she was a Baha'i, he stopped and made a phone call. A car with several people soon showed up, the women fully covered in chadors. Rosa was blindfolded and forced into the vehicle and when they reached their destination, she was thrown onto the pavement, her hands were tied and she was dragged down stairs to a room and beaten. Her captors repeatedly called her an infidel and declared her blood would be impure until she renounced her faith and converted to Islam. Over several years, she was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned.
As proponents of a religion originating from Islam, stamped by modernity, universal human rights and compatibility with many Western values, Baha'is are vulnerable targets for persecution by the Iranian theocracy. Baha'i women are doubly at risk, being female and Baha'i, and as victims of severe injustice, they deserve more outrage and support than Assange and Wikileaks.
Ida Lichter is the author of Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression, published by Prometheus Books, New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
