The day before yesterday was International Literacy Day

Not that I'd actually ever heard of this, but seems like an appropriate enough prompt.

Now, I'd love to to get rid of religious texts as much as the next Koran-hating, soon-to-be-burning (apparently not anymore), Southern evangelical minister with really awful facial hair. But that's where our paths diverge, of course, because I mean to relieve the world of all religion, including mister child-molester-meets-1800s-train-conductor-face's Christianity, not just the ones he deems a threat. (And only a threat to his religion and country, not to the secular world as a whole, as I see religion for the most part.)

That, and my firm belief, buttressed by human history, that prohibition as a methodology for social transformation is usually unhinged from reality. What bothers me more than the destruction of books, which I'm generally against, is the thinking that doing so will effect a desired outcome; that it will somehow stem the supposedly rising tide of supposedly dangerous Islam. (In all fairness, all religion is increasing all the time; that's just part of the deal, especially in the West. Interestingly, of the big three, despite their progenitor status, the Jews have been the worst at this.) In fact, it usually has the opposite effect, as it would here, of fomenting opposition to whatever the mechanism of suppression. And we shouldn't need a general in the field and our president to tell us that.

Not only does this conflate a small faction of violent fundamentalism with its mainstream religious counterpart--a point I've been known to concede if not proffer, though here I'll take the moderate tack--it perhaps belies an insecure uncertainty that the "best" religion, here Christianity, will win out. And so it goes, they must burn certain books, they must ban the construction of certain buildings. All to protect the children, of course. Ironically, it would seem they don't have enough faith (wow, I never thought I'd think that) in their own, well, faith to believe their children will make the same supposedly correct decisions as they have--at least when it comes to what flavor you want your theology-kool-aid.

Hey! You've got your Islam in my Bible Belt!

(Pray harder stupid)

Despite my opinions about the destructive role of religion in society (as this and many other things these days illustrate), I'm all for the freedom of expression, ethically and Constitutionally, and that includes the freedom to worship how one pleases. But if you want to start putting restrictions on religious liberty, I say start with the extremist elements of ALL religions here in the good-old U.S. of A. So that would mean Pastor Facial-Hair-Nightmare and his Fifty Fools in Florida are out of the country and the Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan gets built on the hallowed ground of the once great Burlington Coat Factory.

But more about that another time.

The Land of Milk and Money

"A pair of ultra-orthodox Jewish newspapers altered a photograph of the new Israeli Cabinet, removing two female ministers from the shot, the BBC reported. The papers printed the doctored images last week.

In one of the newspapers, female ministers Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were replaced by two men in the inaugural photo of Israel's new 30-member Cabinet, which is headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The other publication blacked out the women.

Why? Because many ultra-orthodox Jews view publishing photos of women as a violation of female modesty."

Good to see it noted that crazy-ass-Jews are as crazy as crazy-ass-(insert belief system based on imaginary forces, here).

Iran isn't nearly as bad about this stuff (the repression of women) as many of our "allies," say, like parts of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia or some of the smaller Gulf States. No, Israeli women don't have to wear a head-scarf in public by law, like in Iran, but many must have their head's covered according to orthodox Judaism, anyway.

Similarly, restrictions on where and with whom women are allowed exist in both countries. Indeed, because this, and more, is compulsory under law in Iran—not just culturally/traditionally, as in Israel—it’s argued women are more repressed in the Islamic country.

But if the ultimate affect on women is the same, is there a difference? And if so, what?

With Western culture bound by the "rule of law," instinctively, we think that religious tradition made into law is always more of an affront to personal freedom.

Perhaps.

Yet, what is more stultifying to a youngster's identity formation: a law that, while generally followed superficially and publicly by the majority, is derided by them privately as dated at best and oppressive at worst, or a situation where the fear of supernatural retribution is pushed as communal tradition, with no dissenting voice of reason?

Forward looking, it might be that laws can be changed more readily than an ingrained cultural paradigm.

So, maybe, reform could come easily to an ever increasingly globalized Iran. Remember, in the country’s pre-Islamic-revolution history, only about 30 ago, they were as modern as most "western" countries—except, of course, that they had a corrupt military dictator installed by the U.S.

From Wikipedia.com:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, 2000

Ironic how the Taliban, as opposed to the Shah, came to power. Hmm. The first filled the vacuum left after the Cold War ended, by suddenly uninterested "super powers." The other was a direct result of Cold War-era non-detente mishigos.

Perhaps, historically, the U.S. couldn't care less what kind of regime they support/install (or depose, for that matter)--democratic, dictators, religious crazies, secular, oppressors, good or bad--as long as privatization and “free” markets were a result.

One of the CIA's first big successes after its inception, post-WWII, the role it played in Iran also (mentioned above) showed to what degree the government would act as proxy for corporate interests in controlling access to natural resources, which would go on to be duplicated again and again in Latin America for decades. You could argue, what is going on now in the Gulf is, in part, related to this competition for resources (oil).

What I'm getting at is this: exactly where does Israel fall on the spectrum above? Perhaps this revelation about Israel will, at least, allow us to question the unquestionable: is Israel simply a good, non-crazy-religious, non-oppressive democracy?

Not if all residents aren't voting citizens--ala Jim Crow South or, as Jimmy C. likes to say, S. African apartheid. Ha!

Kill the Pope!

Or, at least, the Catholic Church. I say, we send the un-manned drones we're using in Afghanistan/Pakistan to Vatican City for some carpet-bombing. I mean, really, what's it going to take?

On his recent trip through the continent of Africa, the Pope, in one spoken sentence, doomed millions to the ravages of HIV/AIDS. How? He said that a) condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV but helps to spread it, and b) (assuming, even if they did work, perhaps?) to use them would be sacrilege. Seriously, who else in the world could not only get away with this, but be applauded as a harbinger of peace and love? My ass. More like death and destruction.

Some months ago, the Pope got into minor trouble for allowing an outspoken Holocaust-revisionist to re-enter the higher ranks of the Church, after being ousted for the unseemliness. At the time, I wondered, like most of the media, how is it one of the most powerful people in the world was so out of touch as to not see this as a public-relations problem. (Well, being the Pope can be sheltering, no doubt. But, c'mon, he's from Germany.) Really, the question was asking how come he didn't get any good advice about the situation.

But, now, I think I know the answer and the more accurate question. The answer to the previous question, is that he, and his minions, don't care. Specifically, the impression of rolling-back earlier attempts at conciliation with Jews, and other "outsiders," (such as some of what came out of the Vatican II Council, in the 1960's, what many today criticize as too liberal and reformed) wasn't a mistake--because that's exactly what they were trying to do.

The better question, then?

Are we really supposed to think that one of the oldest, venerated, respected (ha!), moneyed and powerful institutions in the history of the world made a PR-snafu of this magnitude? As implied by Occam's razor, this simply can't be the case. And I doubt very much it is this time, for Africa, either. Although, perhaps most exasperating is that, as far as I've heard, no one has criticized the Pope this time as much as last.

So, that brings us to an ugly equation, representing the world's sentiment concerning the Pope's actions and words:

The lives of Jews, dead over 60 years > (for those of you math illiterate, are of greater value than) the future dead of Africans alive today... all of which = bullshit.


(The below is a graphic reminder of why the last thing Africa needs right now is this utter crap from some white dude in a silly hat.)

Revelation: Macabees Revisited (or: Festival of Slights)

Watching BBC World on PBS the other day; and to my shock, discomposure and disorientation, I was shown something I had heard and read about but not ever seen shown on TV: kippah'd and taleet wearing Israeli-jewish settlers living on Palestinian land (according to internationally recognized borders), throwing rocks down a hill onto non-violent Palestinian civilians in the town below--just because.

(Plainly, there's not much to do out in the desert. Things can get a bit tense with one group on the top of the hill praying and bobbing and swaying, and the other at the bottom kneeling and bowing and praying... and praying and bowing and squatting and kneeling! Oh my!)