[Buddha-l] Re: The mess in America

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard,

Keep twisting.

>(That appearance is perhaps misleading, but it
> is created by the fact that you do report them from time to time and then
say
> about people who are not particularly interested in those reports that
they
> are not in touch with reality.)

That's an odd way to connect the dots.

The sequence of posts went something like this.

1. A post that the Archibishop in Britain publicly announced that some
acceptance of Sharia would bring stability was framed as an example of
mappo.

2. A followup post contended that sharia would only apply to Muslims, not
non-muslims, and an example of an interreligious couple was offered as an
example.

3. At this point I joined the discussion, pointing out that -- following
from the example already put in evidence -- that sharia also impacts
non-muslims, adding, as additional evidence, the widespread practice of
honor killings.

4. This brought forth what appeared to me to be an irrational rant, accusing
me of fantasizing the whole thing.

5. I responded with links (and virtually no additional discussion or
characterizations one way or another) to online reports of a relatively
recent development in Lebanon. Had someone -- whether accusatory of me or
not -- actually followed the links, they would have seen that the majority
of them concerned (a) an unusual but welcome development, viz. a top
Lebanese cleric issuing a fatwa against honor killings; (b) a major
conference convened in Lebanon that addressed the problem of honor killings.
A reasonable person more interested in ascertaining the nature of my posts
would conclude that I am happy to see this problem finally be addressing in
a more explicit way within the Lebanese community. A perspicacious reader of
those posts would note that the grounds the cleric cited for issuing his
fatwa banning honor killings was basically two-fold: (1) they were on the
increase, and (2) they are NOT sharia, though everyone who supports them
believes they are.

6. In response, a baseless accusation about an imaginary Israeli killing a
daughter got posted.

7. I pointed out that Buddhism is increasing in popularity in Israel, and
that Israelis are not only developing homegrown Buddhist groups (as I
mentioned, of various stripes: to expand - Zen, Tibetan, Vipassana, etc.),
but also traveling to Buddhist centers elsewhere in Asia.

8. The non sequitor response to that was to reiterate the irrelevant and
inflammatory accusation that Israelis are occupiers (and have a bad
reputation as tourists).

> What has shone through more strongly is an apparent eagerness to sound an
> alarm by portraying some people as killers of women and therefore as
> undesirable immigrants.

I didn't talk about immigrants at all. Is that what you got out of that? I
was questioning the soundness of the Archibishop's assumption that sharia
brings stability.

Had the discussion early on (before I joined it) focused on a different
example (see #2 above), I would have pointed out the fallacy of the
Archbishop's assumption with a different example. (Actually, I did offer
some alternate examples -- such as the attempts of Canadian Muslims to
resist legal tolerance of sharia -- but that thread faded.) For instance, I
would have directed the Archbishop's attention to what is currently
transpiring in Turkey (a country that also is of interest to Europe for a
variety of reasons).

For instance, from the NY Times, Feb. 10:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/world/europe/10turkey.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

What is most instructive about this article (and not the fact that Turkey
has been moving from the secularism of the Ataturk legacy to a more
fundamentalist position in recent years; that's already well known) is the
rhetorical weaponry used by both sides.

"Lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor of a measure supported by Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to change the Constitution in a way they say
will guarantee all citizens the right to go to college regardless of how
they dress."

How liberal and universal that sounds. Rights. Choice. Freedom.


"Secular opposition lawmakers voted against the change, with about a fifth
of all ballots cast. Crowds of secular Turks backed them on the streets of
the capital, Ankara, chanting that secularism — and women’s right to resist
being forced to wear head scarves by an increasingly conservative society —
was under threat.
“This decision will bring further pressure on women,” said Nesrin Baytok, a
member of Parliament from the opposition secular party, during the debate in
Parliament. “It will ultimately bring us Hezbollah terror, Al Qaeda terror
and fundamentalism.”



How "alarmist." The secularists must belong to that dreaded bane of
buddha-l, the Lusthaus contingent. Or maybe they know how to see through the
rhetoric of their opponents (with a bit of flourish of their own). Behind
the hyperbole is the legitimate fear that, despite the rhetoric of the
religionists, this law is about endangering and ultimately eliminating
choice, freedoms and rights. Those with a modicum of memory will remember
that Adhimajad used a similar rhetorical appeal to rights (with a big dose
of anti-colonialism) to claim Iran's right to build nuclear weapons when
speaking at Columbia U. This is a commonly used -- and often effective -- 
rhetorical ploy that many Western observers, unlike the Turkish secularists,
find seductive.

The point, however, is that sharia is not bringing "stability" to Turkey. On
the contrary. One could add other examples such as Pakistan, etc.

Ok, Richard, have a twist...



Secularly and securely yours,

Dan