Paganplace!

Just a quick note to let you know that I agree with your argument that the media distorted Obama's remarks. My allusion to the way those remarks were "used and abused" reflects my own sense that Obama was either not understood, or was misrpresented.

Best, Dan Brumberg

Paganplace!

Just a quick note to let you know that I agree with your argument that the media distorted Obama's remarks. My allusion to the way those remarks were "used and abused" reflects my own sense that Obama was either not understood, or was misrpresented.

Best, Dan Brumberg

Just on this point:

"Some interesting bedfellows (including William Kristol!) joined Hillary Clinton in arguing that Obama subscribes to an “elitist” view that faith does not reflect deeply held religious values. Rather, it is a tool the alienated consciously or unconsciously use to cope with economic or social misfortune."

This is how the media cast it, that he was disrespecting *faith itself,* when clearly, to me that's not what he meant in context. He was talking about how many of the economically-frustrated will often cling to 'wedge issues' related to religion and gun control and anti-immigrant fears, rather than actually support policies that might better their situation.

The *clinging* to religiously-aggressive agendas, and fears about having one's guns taken away is what he referred to, not a disrespect for certain lifestyles, themselves. There's a difference, there.

Here is an important and pertinent point of view in regard to the Shariah issue. Link provided to full article.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Reformist Muslims need legal
protection from blasphemy accusations

by Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fatah

The Jurist

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/04/reformist-muslims-need-legal-protection.php

How long will it take the leadership of North America's traditional Muslim leadership to embrace the First amendment of the United Sates constitution and the doctrine of the separation of religion and state? Will the concept of freedom of expression survive ever-new challenges from the defenders of medieval traditions that bar any discussion or critique of religion?

These are questions bubbling below the surface right now, but eventually are bound to erupt into the open. Moreover, when they do, chances of a rise in overt racist backlash against Muslims of all shades and opinions is a likely outcome. Certainly, the events of the past few months provide ample evidence for this trend, with two human rights complaints making newspaper headlines and leading to fierce debates about the limits of free speech and what might constitute hate literature.

full article via link above

Daniel,
Nice post! I agree with your defense of connecting religious beliefs to social conditions. If religion were not in some ways a response to people's actual social circumstances, it would be hopelessly irrelevant. Your colleague at Georgetown, Abdolkarim Soroush argues that one could indeed make a strong case for an Islamic democracy based on Shari'a and Western democratic traditions' shared commitment to a rule of law. However, your point is well-taken that a crucial component of democracy besides rule of law is the protection of minority rights. And Shari'a, at least in practice (in the examples you cite), does not inspire even the advocates of liberal Islamic democracy with confidence about its ability to assure minority rights. Where then could you find a strong Islamic ideological basis (rather than only a secular Western democratic basis) for the protection of minority rights? Soroush thinks you can find it in Sufi traditions. What do you think?

The proposal of “Islamic judicial review” has already been tried and failed. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini conceded to a secularists in the revolutionary coalition to re-establish the parliament and secular branches of the government, but also set up just such a review board called the Guardian Council. Today, the Guardian Council is the ultimate conservative veto player in Iranian politics, vetting out any candidate for office who they deem a threat to Islamic values and, more importantly, the hegemony of the clerics.

"Islamic judicial review" is a reversion, not an advancement in the cause of democracy.

In the 1979 constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Khomeini bowed to modernist, liberal thinkers by (re)-establishing Iran's parliament (majles) and executive branch. But he also insisted on creating a Guardian Council that would defend the regime's Islamic principles. Today, it is the Guardian Council which is the ultimate conservative veto player in Iranian politics, disqualifying dozens if not hundreds of candidates for office because their views do not accord with those of the clerical establishment.