Religious Tolerance Second to Civil Rights

Tomorrow marks nine years since an extreme Islamic group took our country completely by surprise.  Prior to this, Americans lived in a naive state of mind believing terrorism to be a foreign thing that plagued uncivilized places in some distant land.  We had heard of the strife in the Middle East caused by suicide bombings and jihadis, but on this day nine years ago, terrorism would forever take a place in American thought, discussion, and fears.

Everywhere we turn Islam is in the forefront of discussion.  Every media page, news program, magazine and blogosphere is in a constant state of reporting some story that revolves around Muslims.  It has completely permeated every area of American life: our culture, our legal system, our deepest held beliefs.  We are told many things from people who have a myriad of motives. The unknown has thrown America into a tailspin.  Many people, even with the best of intentions have no idea how to react to a value system so different from our own.  This is why we hear outrageous stories ranging from extreme acquiescence of allowing Sharia law within our borders to the incendiary pastor condoning and leading the burning of Korans.

Let me start by making some statements that will probably really anger some of you.  Let’s just get them out of the way.  After reading Nomad, an incredible book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who escaped extreme Islam, I am more sure than ever that most forms of Islam will never coexist with American values.  She tells of the Islam that she has seen, one that rules by fear, warning of a furious god that will punish for the most minor infraction, and results in total social control.  She tells of societal norms, prescribed by their biblical texts that oppress women, and sour men towards all forms of modernity, seeing them as immoral and corrupt.  She points out certain passages in the Koran that suggest beating your wife to keep her from rebelling, killing infidels, and valuing men above women in every way.  A Muslim woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s in a court of law.  In the case of rape, it is a he said/she said, and he always wins because his testimony is worth double of hers.  A woman who is raped is often outcast or stoned for her “illicit” behavior that led to her rape.   A Muslim woman’s inheritance is legally half that of her brother’s.

The author herself underwent genital mutilation at the hands of her grandmother as a small girl so that she would never enjoy sex, and thus, remain pure and faithful to her future husband.  She states that genital mutilation is an extremely common practice in African Muslim nations, happening to 90% or more of young girls, and continues in Western societies despite laws trying to prevent it.  Ali had no choice in whom she would marry, and faced an arranged marriage to a cousin that she fled from, putting her very life in jeopardy for her disobedience.  Merely speaking out as a now-American citizen has her life at a constant threat from Muslims trying to assassinate her.

Under Muslim law, women do not have the right to decide what to wear, if they will work, who they will marry, or even where they will go.  All these decisions are made for them by their father, brothers or husband.

Let me stop here.  Folks, we are not talking about extreme Islam here.  Just plain Islam.  Certainly, there are zealots in Islam just as there are in other religions, and of course there are moderate Muslims who do not prescribe to these beliefs, but in many cases these are values taken directly from their holy texts and integrated into their daily lives. And let me address something that is sure to be argued: these are folks living among us.  They are not just some fringe group in a far-away land.  There are millions of Muslim Americans living around us that have immigrated from all over the globe.  Do you think they integrated into American life completely upon entering our borders?  Do you think they left behind all their customs and beliefs just because they don’t jibe with our American civil rights?  Do you think they care about feminism?

Recently, a case in New York came to light in which a woman accused her husband of multiple rapes.  The state pressed charges, and the husband calmly explained in court that he abides by Sharia law, which dictates that a man can have his wife whenever he wants, even if she doesn’t want to have sex.  He admitted to forcibly making her perform sex acts because that was his right as a husband.  Was he sentenced to years in prison for admitting to raping his wife, you ask?  No, a judge found that the man would be held to a different standard because his personal religious beliefs dictated a different set of rules.  So basically, we’ll just throw the laws of our nation out the window to acquiesce to someone who is attacking their wife on a regular basis in the name of religious tolerance.  Be warned: Someone who thinks Sharia Law is acceptable is accepting of discrimination against women.  There’s no way around it.

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, and extremism is growing in leaps and bounds as well.  Today, a major news source released a report that showed a frightening increase in Muslim American-born citizens resorting to terrorism.  In her book, Ali addresses this issue, describing how Muslim populations often “ghettoize,” segregating themselves from the rest of society.  They do this so they can uphold their way of life, their beliefs and customs.  It also serves to become a source of “Us and Them” syndrome, though.  Since they do not integrate into our society, they see themselves on the outskirts, and feel rejected.  Many refuse to learn the language, their children have trouble in school, and they don’t identity themselves as American, but rather just living in America.  Because of this, they feel no loyalty to America, no patriotism.  They are angered by inequality, and feel marginalized (even if it is by their own doing), and they are easily swayed by zealots selling extremism.  They see themselves as SO different from the American population who heralds shows such as, “Sex and the City,” and, “the Sopranos,” and regale a woman’s right to choose, and support wars waged against Muslim nations.  They are happy to stand up for what they believe, and youth are often talked into a suicide mission that promises honor for their family, and happiness in the afterlife.   Ali mentions how common it is for Muslims to profess their beliefs even door to door, and win people over with good works and charity just to later spoon feed them a load of propaganda to inspire them to jihad. This cycle of events is sure to continue, and will be detrimental to the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans.  Every security measure, no matter how necessary, will remove some of the freedom we have to travel, to communicate, even how we live in our own homes.

So what can we do?  America is an awesome place of diversity and freedom.  While we should continue to celebrate that diversity, we should also be wary of people seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of others.  Just because it is done in a side of town that we are not familiar with, does not mean we can turn our backs on it.  We have a responsiblity as Americans to ensure that ALL people living within our borders are being treated in a humane, safe manner, regardless of color, sex or religion.  We need to shove religious tolerance to the side when it conflicts with basic human rights.  We cannot allow religious law to supersede the laws of our country, or the rights provided for us under the Constitution.  We need to help immigrants integrate fully into our society, and show them the value of assimilation.  Most importantly, we need to show them the good side of America.  We need to show love, compassion, and the idea of a loving God, a God who doesn’t ask us to give our lives, but gave the life of His Son for us. People who are connected and empathetic to those around them will not be as willing to kill the innocent.

The Unhappy Meal

        In the wake of movies such as, “Super Size Me,” the story of a man who becomes fat and unhealthy after eating three meals a day at McDonald’s, it has become popular to demonize fast food chains, and the meals they offer.  Now, we are seeing actual legislation seeking to limit, or outlaw certain foods. California has done some crazy things in its day, but they have gone way too far this time.  Elect the Terminator as Governor, sure, but leave my Happy Meal alone!  For those of you who haven’t heard, Santa Barbara County, California has officially passed a law that prohibits the inclusion of a toy in kids’ meals that contain too many calories and fat.  What is too many calories, you might ask?  The toy will be excluded from any child’s meal that exceeds 450 calories, which is exactly ALL of them.  Even asking for apple slices instead of fries at Mickey Dees won’t help you get Barbie Princess. 

     Back in my day (which wasn’t that long ago!) we had parents who were competent to make decisions, and, imagine this, a government that stayed out of our personal business.  This whole trend of demonizing junk food is so obnoxious to me.  Kids are fatter than ever, and we are looking to point the finger anywhere but at ourselves. In the era of video games and texting, parents these days are excited if their child will play Wii bowling because it’s the most physical activity that they will get for the entire week. So is this Burger King’s fault?  Aren’t we in charge of what our children eat?  Parents aren’t taking the time to make home-cooked meals, are grabbing fast food, and the scales are telling the tale.  I will not deny that a large percentage of children are overweight, but I get down-right angry when someone tries to mess with my junk food, as if Cheetos are waging war on America.

     Recent measures, such as NYC threatening to ban all saturated fats from city limits, and the campaigns throughout school systems nationwide to get rid of pop machines and snacks are anti-American.  Before you think I’ve lost it, consider this:  There are high school students that are old enough to fight in Iraq who are not allowed to crack open a Sprite at lunch.  I would venture to say that this is unconstitutional.  A legal adult should be able to drink whatever non-alcoholic beverage they choose.  Many schools will not even let students bring in soda with their parents’ permission.

     What bothers me even more than the personal rights side of it, though, is the Big Government infringing on the rights of business.  Michelle Obama takes offense to fat kids, and all the sudden my son can’t have a toy in his Happy Meal?  As I parent, I know that the toy is one of the only weapons we have against a stubborn child.  “Eat your nuggets, and you can have your car.”  Am I revealing too much?  Perhaps the children of Santa Barbara County choose on their own good judgment to dine on tofu and wheat grass, and a greasy cheeseburger is a personal affront to their sensitivities.  I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that even yuppie parents have a desperate moment every decade or two, where they swing by a drive-thru to get a quick meal.  This law will put the business owners of Santa Barbara County at a disadvantage.  Silly or not, they will lose business.  And will this really inspire parents to enforce good eating habits for their children?  Of course not.  We will still have fat children because we have fat parents with bad habits and the unwillingness to say no.

     The government has no business in business.  Short of regulations that prevent an E-Coli breakout or a six-year-old from cleaning bathrooms, I don’t want our government passing moral judgments on something as American as a cheeseburger.  Now if a parent decides that said cheeseburger is too fatty for their child, so be it.  If a parent is worried about the amount of sugar in a soda, they can refrain from buying soda.  Passing a law, no matter how well-intended, on my health, is un-American.  It’s none of your business whether I eat a salad or the fattiest, cheese-dripping, bacon-covered burger on the planet.

     Before you decide I’ve made much ado about nothing, I want you to think about something much more worrisome: If our government is willing to nit-pick on something so minor as a toy, what other issues will they stick their nose into?  What larger rights will they soon be trying to take away?

How could something that looks so good be bad?

A Government For the People: According To Who?

     Despite nationwide opposition, Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader, announced last week that democrats will pass a health care bill in the next 60 days through a procedure called reconciliation.  Reconciliation, a measure first introduced in 1974 is used to stop debate and prevent amendments when a majority is held in a congressional body.  Used several times in the past, it is very controversial, and viewed by many as a shady back-room deal that essentially leaves a whole political party out of the discussion.

     The latest Rasmussen polls tell us that 52% of Americans are opposed to a national health care plan, while only 44% approve.  Other polls have shown the disapproval rate as high as 58%, yet Nancy Pelosi and the Obama Administration are intent on passing a bill that most Americans don’t want.  Pelosi has been urging democrats to pass the bill, ignoring the concerns of their constituents, and threatening their re-election.

     Why democrats are so eager to pass this bill so quickly, I do not know.  61% of voters believe Congress should scrap the proposed plan, and start over, and 63% want Congress to pass smaller bills that address individual problems, instead of a massive overhaul of the health care system.  The people have many concerns.  There is the budget to think of, and the incredible national deficit, and a huge concern to many is the inclusion of abortion at the tax payer’s expense.  Do these issues give Congressional Democrats pause?  They don’t seem to.

     The issue of abortion being included in the bill is not just an effort by right-wingers to stall or thwart the proposed plan.  Nancy Pelosi has stated firmly that the plan does not support abortions with taxpayer money, but she isn’t being completely honest.  There are many loopholes in the wording that would, indeed, allow for women to receive abortions paid for by taxes.  For instance, in the current version of the bill, there is something called the Mikulski Amendement where abortion can be defined as “preventative care” for women.  Prevention of what?  Morning sickness and swelling ankles?  This is just one example of ways democrats will be able to push through their agenda with objectors (Republicans) having no voice thanks to the reconciliation process.

     In the past there has also been provisions for health care providers in bills called, “full conscience protection.”  Essentially, this is the promise that although doctors, nurses, etc., help process health care procedures paid for by government programs, they cannot be forced or accused of discrimination for denying to perform procedures they disagree with morally.  This means that a medical professional cannot be asked to perform an abortion if they object to it ethically.  They also cannot be penalized in any way for not performing a procedure that the government is providing. The current health care bill allows no such provision.  It is not clear what would happen to a doctor or nurse that would refuse to perform an abortion, but this bill does not protect their right of refusal as past bills have.

      While abortion is such a hot-button issue in our country, I would think democrats would be more inclined to compromise in order to get more people on board with the health care overhaul.  President Obama arranged a health care “summit” which would supposedly bring together bipartisan ideas, and mesh them into the perfect health care reform bill.  Republicans were promised a chance to voice concerns about the bill, but meanwhile, democrats were furiously working in the background on their own agenda, as if the outcome of the summit didn’t matter a lick.  They all know this matter will be decided by democrats and democrats alone.  While President Obama talks a good talk about bipartisanship, and being open about proceedings, the end result was always going to be the reconciliation process where democrats go in a back room and leave Republicans powerless.  Republicans are painted by Pelosi and her ilk as difficult to deal with, and dems pretend that this is not how they wanted to do things, and that they are just trying to do what is right for the American people.

     The truth is that Republicans and Independents are simply voicing the concerns of millions of Americans who are scared about the price tag of such a huge overhaul of our system.  They are worried about the quality of care they will be receiving, and the effect such a huge program would have on our country in a tough economic climate.  The idea that reconciliation can even be used in this instance is a mystery to me.  Democrats tried to implement it in 1994 for Clinton’s health care plan, and a rule, the Byrd Rule, halted the process because it states that reconciliation cannot be used when the national deficit will be increased for more than 10 years after the measure is used.  Obama and Pelosi insist that this plan will actually lower our deficit.  Any grade schooler could tell you that spending $1 Trillion does not add up to helping our debt problem.  Pillaging Medicare and other programs is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, and does not help our overall money mess.

     Reconciliation is a nasty process, and while it has been used by both parties at various times, I believe it is so anti-American.  We vote to elect politicians to go to Washington and represent us and our beliefs.  Then, using an obscure method of procedure, our “guys” are completely side-lined, and we have no voice at all.

      Nancy Pelosi and others insist this is what is best for the American public, and I think she truly believes it.  I don’t doubt that her intentions are good.  It is sad that there are so many Americans that are uninsured, and have gone bankrupt to make good on their medical bills.  That being said, her condescension cannot be ignored.  The entire attitude in Washington democrats seems to be that they know what’s best for us, even though we can’t see it.  No matter how we protest or argue, or assemble, we are portrayed as a bunch of nut cases that don’t know what’s best for themselves.  Tea parties are openly regarded as a bunch of wackos congregating, and anyone who disagrees with the health care plan is looked upon as someone with sinister, greedy, right-wing intent. 

     And they don’t stop there.  Not only does Nancy Pelosi assume she knows what’s best for me, she is intent forcing her agenda at the same time.  According to her, what is best is free abortions for all American women.  Somehow we have gone from a focus on suffering citizens with pre-existing conditions to a platform for young women to have easier access to government funded abortions.  In a plan where every citizen is covered, it will be easier than ever for young girls to receive abortions without parental notification.  Nevermind the fact that, once again, the majority of people in our country think abortion is wrong.  So not only does the Obama Administration seek to implement a plan most do not agree with, they also want Americans who despise abortion to pay for it out of their paycheck each month.

     Once upon a time, we pretended that the people we voted for and elected represented us in Washington.  This was not so long ago.  We could voice our concerns to them, and supposedly they considered our opinions when voting on issues.  However, with the majority of Americans saying, “no,” to the health care overhaul, our voice is falling on deaf ears.  When President Lincoln gave his address at Gettysburg, he spoke words that Americans would hold dear for centuries to come.  His ideal of a government, “of the people, by the people, for the people,” is an integral principle of our country.  But the question remains: A government for the people, according to who?  The people have spoken, and the Nancy Pelosis of this country have ignored their voice.

 

What do you think?  Leave a comment below!