Something that doesn’t get discussed enough is how the “Free World” was able to exploit Communism’s official atheism and make it a liability in the Cold War. This was true in Poland, but it was really, really true in Afghanistan. We talk about the blowback we created in funding the mujahideen, but we don’t often mention how they were motivated to fight on behalf of Islam against the godless communists. The U.S. is a religious country that is tolerant of religious differences. But right-wingers like Frank Gaffney play right into the jihadists’ hands when they insist on demonizing Islam and Sharia Law. Whatever we might think about Sharia Law, we’re not in a war against it, nor should we be. We might advocate for human rights that are not upheld under Sharia Law, but we’re not occupying Afghanistan to dictate what kind of legal system they employ. The insistence that we are at war with Islam actually convinces some Muslims. If you are interested in a perpetual state of war, this strategy might make sense. If you want to create some security and peace, it makes no sense at all.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
11 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
.
Worse yet, by denying the role played in this attack by Maj. Hasan’s adherence to the seditious, jihadist program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah,” the administration can only compound the problem that has been illuminated by the investigation to date: the collective refusal of the Army, the intelligence services, the FBI and the U.S. government more generally to act against an individual with such proclivities [definition Webster’s].
Great, I still have my Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary on the bookshelf … to decipher Gaffney’s irrational writing. However, what is a “seditious, jihadist program authoritative Islam calls ‘Shariah’?” I could comprehend when Gaffney is defining Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia, the sheiks and wealthy oil friends of Bush Sr. and Jr.
PS Does Gaffney have a brother in arms called Wilders in The Netherlands?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."he just wants to kill Muslims. He has no larger goal, although he’d happily kill eskimos if that became equally lucrative.
unfortunately it’s not just right wingers that demonize Islam; plenty on the left think we need to stay in Afghanistan to force them to treat the women better.
that’s probably unfair. The treatment of women is merely one concern among many about Taliban rule.
To the extent that interpretations of Islam (or various brands of Christianity) treat women horribly, what is wrong with demonizing it?
I am perfectly happy to impose my view in terms of banning FGM for example.
I’ve come to a similar conclusion. I was already headed that way at the beginning of the Bush years, but the Islamist nutjobs on the other side of the planet and the Christo-fascist nutjobs on our side of the planet succeeded in changing my mind about religious freedom.
As far as I’m concerned, religious freedom means this and no more: you can believe whatever you want, and you can talk about it as long as you aren’t disturbing the peace or inciting hatred. Nothing beyond that is a right. And considering what a tremendously negative social force religion is in the overwhelming majority of cases, “people of faith” should be grateful they get that much and that we don’t eliminate their tax exemption and funnel the resulting revenue into treatment and prevention after recognizing religion for what it is: a communicable mental illness.
Furthermore, any government that violates the basic human rights of its citizens for any reason, much less religious reasons, has no legitimacy, and therefore no sovereignty to violate.
In short, any government, even a democratic one, that imposes Sharia law — or anything remotely resembling the equally vicious Jewish and Christian laws as described in their respective versions of the Bible — ceases to exist as a legitimate state. While that is by no means an invitation to attack, it does open the way for — and, arguably, demands — the United Nations to occupy and liberate its territory if less drastic measures fail to produce consistent and verifiable progress towards civilization.
The Bronze Age is over. Can we please stop tiptoeing around the savages?
And how conservatives were able to use that same atheism as a scary thing to attack elements of US society that they did not like.
Taunts of “Communist” began as taunts of “Godless Communist”.
But now, the intent of the neo-conservatives is to keep the US in an endless state of war to bleed the treasury so much that all those “Communist” social programs have to be scrapped.
We are experiencing multiple sources of blowback from the propaganda of the Cold War, and it has not passed yet.
‘The U.S. is a religious country…’
I’ll remember that.
.
.. that is tolerant of religious differences.
Indeed amazing, I must be living in an alternate universe.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."What? — you can be a Baptist or a Catholic or a Methodist or a Presbyterian and a whole bunch more, unless they are unacceptable, and not get killed. Since Christianity is the only real religion we tolerate every possible religious difference. Get it? You better.
Our host has evidently never had a police sergeant standing in his living room bellowing that he ought to be killed because he’s an atheist. It gives you something to think about during the long ride downtown.