As I noted on Wednesday, President Obama visited a mosque in Baltimore (see New York Times story here). At the time I thought that was, on the whole, a good thing to do, assuring nervous American Muslims that they have the government behind them, and that are just as “American” as everyone else. My only beef was Obama’s statement that “An attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths,” which I saw as a gratuitious bit of faith-coddling.
Since then I’ve found something else that’s disturbing: the mosque that Obama visited and addressed is segregated by sex, so that normally men can pray in the big fancy room (the musallah), while women are relegated to a drab back room. And even during Obama’s visit, girls were herded into the gym, while boys were allowed in the main room where Obama spoke.
(This reminds me of a time I took a female visitor to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Brooklyn: she was not Jewish and I wanted her to see the frenetic davening and strange behavior of the Orthodox. While I was led onto the main floor of the synagogue, full of davening men, where I was quickly wrapped in a tallit, tefillin, and capped with a yarmulke, my friend was taken to the “women’s section”: a dark room above the floor where the women were forced to sit, watching the action below through a barred window.)
Apparently two-thirds of American mosques are segregated by sex. What kind of message, then, does Obama send when he visits one of them? If he’s arguing that Muslims hold to American values, well, that’s not the case when it comes to their houses of worship.
Were I Obama, I would have either visited a non-segregated mosque or had some public meeting with Muslims in another place. (I don’t expect that Obama will be visiting a Lubavitcher synagogue any time soon, though, on a per capita basis, America Jews suffer twice as many hate crimes as do American Muslims.)
In fact, in the New York Times‘s “Women in the World” section, two Muslim feminists, Asra Q. Nomani and Ify Okoye, objected strenuously to what they call Muslim “gender apartheid”, describing what happened during Obama’s visit:
The girls, shrouded in headscarves that, in some cases, draped half their bodies, slipped into a stark gymnasium and found seats on bare red carpet pieces laid out in a corner. They faced a tall industrial cement block wall, in the direction of the qibla, facing Mecca, a basketball hoop above them. Before them a long narrow window poured a small dash of sunlight into the dark gym.
On the other side of the wall, the boys clamored excitedly into the majestic musallah, their feet padded by thick, decorated carpet, the sunlight flooding into the room through spectacular windows engraved with the 99 names of Allah, or God, in Islam. Ornate Korans and Islamic books filled shelves that lined the front walls.
. . . President Obama should be aware that on any given day a woman or girl worshiping in the mosque would be dispatched away from the musallah where he will stand to speak out against “Islamophobia,” to the “prayer room for females,” as one worshipper described it. In much the same way that he wants to mitigate Americans seeing Muslims as the “other,” we have to challenge the Muslim systems that segregate women as the “other.” He should know that promoting women’s rights in mosques is a key part of fighting the ideology of extremism — a fight that he asked American Muslims to help wage in an address to the nation in December. A theology of Islamic feminism is our best answer to the extremism of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim militant groups. Even the most conservative of Islamic scholars acknowledge that, in the 7th century, the sunnah, or tradition of the prophet Muhammad, was to allow women to pray in the main hall of his mosque in Medina without any barrier in front of them.
. . . As women and girls, we should be supported by policies that allow us to be part of such conversations. The president can support this urgent cause by speaking out against gender segregation in American mosques. In the spirit of the civil rights moment when whites stood with blacks, we hope men and women will refuse the privilege that “interfaith” events give them, and, in act of solidarity, stand outside with us on Johnnycake Road and the other pathways leading to the mosques in our world, advocating for equal rights for all.
Among those Muslim feminists protesting on Johnnycake Road was a coauthor of the piece above: Asra Nomani, journalist, cofounder of The Muslim Reform Movement, and author of Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam. Below is a video from MSNBC of Nomani debating the segregated-mosque visit with journalist and correspondent Jonathan Alter. I think Nomani won the exchange handily.
Alter says that the purpose of Obama’s talk was to tell everyone “what it means to be an American.” Well, one thing it should mean to be American is to reject women being given second-class status.
Really, what’s the difference between Muslim women being relegated to second-class space during prayers, and black people being forced to drink at separate water fountains during the era of segregation? The only difference is one is based on religion, and that one is still with us.
“Really, what’s the difference between Muslim women being relegated to second-class space during prayers, and black people being forced to drink at separate water fountains during the era of segregation? The only difference is one is based on religion, and is still with us.”
Exactly. Wish that could get wider readership….how could anyone possibly counter that?
By trying to appease one interest group, he manages to insult 50% of the world’s population.
Maybe when he’s no longer president Obama will finally admit he’s really atheist. Would love to see Sanders win the election and choose the Constitution over the Bible to take the oath of office. Doesn’t have to proclaim his “(non)belief”, just that would do — sending frustrated theocrats, tea partiers, etc. into a major tizzy!
Considering that Obama told a Christian group very recently that Jesus will overcome fear, I doubt it.
If he’s an atheist, he’s a hypocritical one. We can do without those.
Agree. If he really was an atheist, I don’t think he’d have made quite the xian overtures he has made. He has not maintained plausible deniability, imo, and so closed off the possibility of coming out gracefully as an atheist in the future.
Hypocrisy is a synonym for politician.
Actually the only thing that surprised me was that some mosques are not segregated. I didn’t realise that was a thing.
Anyone have any first-hand knowledge of these? Is this a particular subgroup or a more liberal form of islam, or something?
Let’s hope the term “Muslim feminist” will become less oxymoronic.
From Nomani: Islam throughout the world 50 years ago were fairly reasonable about gender and many other issues. At that time Saudi Arabia, whose governing family was politically associated with Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam, came into a jackpot of oil money and decided to spread Wahhabism throughout the world. It is this radically conservative form of Islam that then displaced the prevailing progressive forms. So this is a relatively recent phenomenon in the U.S. and elsewhere.
sub
Regarding current political climate, I’m dreadfully fearful of an ultra-conservative, patriarchal, religious politician who desires to put women back into subordite roles. I agree Jerry, this is one of the American values where religion is indeed dangerous.
subordite…subordinate.
Treating women equally in faith based institutions would mean allowing them the opportunity to occupy leadership positions. Fat-chance that is ever going to happen!!
It’ll happen in the Vatican before it happens in Islam.
Is that an elaborate way of saying ‘never’ ?
cr
I think you’ve got it!!
No, but I don’t have a current weather forecast for the Slough of Despond, so I thought I’d better stick to more observable criteria than snowball lifetime expectations.
But Canada has come through! We can now work on the half-life of snowballs near the Slough of Despond by looking at the weather forecast.
(Here. It took some finding.
I was going to be smartarse and ask if that was the Slough on the Thames but I see you beat me to it.
The one you found looks to be in wooded country, so maybe not as desolate as the name might imply. Unfortunately Google Images doesn’t help, all it brings up is woodcuts and I do not think any of the artists have been anywhere near Lake Huron.
cr
I did feel a Betjaman-esque temptation to invoke “friendly bombs”.
Was it Betjman? Betjeman. Whatever.
In labour-saving homes, with careTheir wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.
Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.
Is it *that* awful?
I think I have driven through Slough, but I really can’t remember it.
These days though, John Betjeman would end up on a terrorist watch list.
cr
You know, I think I’ve driven through Slough once. No reason to do it again.
Ha, ha, that’s great!
I wonder if they perhaps have a Valley of the Shadow of Death?
Not on Google Maps (though there is death Valley, of course. And quite a lot of Dead Mans Gulch’s)
cr
But of course. And then there’s always Jan & Dean’s Dead Man’s Curve. 😀
Just outside Sevastopol, isn’t it? 400 graves (but not Robert, or his geologist son, William.)
That valley doesn’t appear to have a name, other than ‘North Valley’ which is probably not a real name. Can’t find it on Googlemaps.
I’ve always thought that charge to be a classic monument to stupidity and pointless heroism. They all knew it was a cock-up but their misguided conception of honour made them get themselves pointlessly killed anyway. Even more stupid in that respect than muslim suicide bombers.
The only people to emerge with credit from that seem to be the French Chasseurs d’Afrique.
I expect everybody knows Marshal Bosquet’s comment “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre. C’est de la folie.” (The last four words usually get forgotten).
Oh. The Charge of the Light Brigade, in case anyone’s wondering what I and the gravel inspector are babbling about. Wikipedia has a page on it.
cr
Disobeying orders in the face of the enemy is a capital offence. You might be able to argue it these days, but in those day’s you’d as likely have had a 30 second group trial followed by your horses getting slapped on their arses. Assuming there were enough trees around to throw the ropes over.
“Oh. The Charge of the Light Brigade, in case anyone’s wondering what I and the gravel inspector are babbling about.”
Cannon to the right of them, Cannon to the left of them…
Hmm, looked it up as I should have before posting–drop the “the”s.
That had also occurred to me.
The only way to come out a winner (that is, alive) seems to be
1. Don’t join the army
2. Don’t live in the 19th century
(both of which I have successfully done. Or rather, not done).
Following orders would seem to have been a classic lose-lose situation there. Most of them got killed, which was a loss to them personally, and they achieved nothing and the British Army lost almost an entire valuable brigade. Also a no-win situation in that not following orders would have got them dead too, as you note.
cr
Oh, there were always options. Get a friend to wing you, if you thought the sergeant couldn’t see ; and if you thought the aim would be good enough to miss the bone, and that you wouldn’t die of infection …
@Diane
“Cannon to the right of them, Cannon to the left of them…”
Not to mention the cannon ahead of them, which did most of the damage.
My lasting impression of the futility of the charge was formed entirely from reading Tennyson’s poem that was supposed to laud it.
The cannon to the left were taken out very efficiently (just 38 French casualties) by the Chasseurs d’Afriques, the only people who seem to have got it right on that day, which is partly why as many as 1/3 of the Light Brigade got back in working order.
This map shows it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charge_Timeline.jpg
The cannon were firing round shot and case shot (shrapnel) which only had a range of 300 yards, and not exactly quick-firing either – just 200 cannon rounds were fired during the attack phase, which is probably why the Light Brigade actually reached their objective and some of them got back. This was before the introduction of machine guns, obviously.
cr
Probably the last major war fought without the machine gun (if you classify the Gatling gun as a machine gun ; there are probably subtleties … scratch that “probably” – I recall that the bullets in a Gatling gun are moved by the crank, not the cartridge gases, so it wasn’t a “machine gun”. Amazing the things you pick up from Time Team).
I grew up wondering why there was a street called “Alma Street” in my home town – a very weird word for Central England. It wasn’t until a stray comment from my history teacher that I found it was a memorial to the Crimean War. That and the “Cannon” bar. I’m sure if I went through a map, I’d find more Crimea references in that part of town, which was obviously built not much after the war.
The guns captured in the Charge of the Light Brigade are what are used to make Victoria Crosses. I’m not sure if they’ve admitted how much they’ve got left, but it’s finite. And then we’ll stop having to have wars. Or fight them with roberts, or something.
At Aidan & infinite–thank you both for the history lesson! I feel like I’ve always known the poem but little of the story behind it. That diagram was fascinating (in a gruesome sort of way), cr.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..
Sorry. Could not reply in proper order.
Yes the Gatling gun uses an external power source – initially it was hand-cranked. It fell out of use when lighter more compact self-powered (recoil-operated) machine guns like the Maxim came along.
It was revived in the 50’s for aircraft use, for which it offered particular advantages – extremely high rate of fire, modern aircraft have plenty of power available to drive it electrically, and one other great advantage for aircraft use – being externally powered, a misfire won’t stop it – the dud round just gets ejected along with the empty cases by the mechanism.
cr
@Diane
“That diagram was fascinating (in a gruesome sort of way), cr.”
What surprised me about the diagram was how _few_ guns there were. The poem gives the impression of overwhelming firepower. In fact there were 10 guns to the left, a battery (3 or 4?) to the right, and 8 guns ahead. With a range (firing canister) of just 300 yards. And just 200 rounds fired.** Plus riflemen. By modern standards, that’s puny.
That makes the charge seem a little less suicidal.
(** That was during the attack. There were few rounds fired on the return, since the Brigade themselves had taken out the 8 guns ‘ahead’ and the Chasseurs d’Afriques had taken out the 10 guns and riflemen to the north).
cr
As I said, I was watching a “Time Team” about a WW1 Machine Gun Corps training camp. they used IIRC on the order of a million rounds a week.
I’m less surprised that TT didn’t find many rounds or shell casings. They’d have needed to floor the machine gun posts and have a procedure for sweeping up and removing the casings, otherwise the guns would have become buried in the things. Plus the scrappies would have had anything that got missed at the camp’s tear down.
@ infinite
Well, this is why they call it poetic license. 🙄
After a look at the Wikipedia page I’m afraid I was a little too impressed by the fact that there was not only a Lord Cardigan involved, but also a Lord Raglan as well…(Nor was I aware that there was also such a thing as a Heavy Brigade. I’d always wondered why the subject was named the Light Brigade–nice to finally know.)
Actually I went to the Wiki page to see if it said anything about the horses, and it did. 335 were killed or wounded severely enough that they had to be put down.
@ Diane
cr: “What surprised me about the diagram was how _few_ guns there were.”
Diane: “Well, this is why they call it poetic license.”
I guess, in those days, 21 or 22 cannon may have seemed like an awful lot. Even spread out over a mile and a quarter. (I must admit, even one cannon shooting at me would seem like one too many).
cr
We forget how much we luxuriate in the abundance of materiel. A ton of cast bronze in a cannon doesn’t seem like so much these days, but that remains a very big investment of copper and tin, coal (all of which have to be smelted ; then the tools to machine the bronze, and the tools to make the tools for the foundry. And the tools to make the shot (case shot and grape shot – both requiring appreciable machining) … There was a lot more to such a cannon in 1850 than going down to Joe’s Army Surplus and picking up a cannon. It’s quite conceivable that several miners alone died in the making of the guns (not that the Tsars were renowned for caring about that sort of thing).
Oh, and Lord Cardigan reputedly invented it. The cardigan, that is.
“Nor was I aware that there was also such a thing as a Heavy Brigade.”
The name has an irresistible ring to it, doesn’t it? Much more so than ‘Light Brigade’.
“Send in (dah dah daaaah) the HEAVY BRIGADE!”
Those are the guys who, like, break things so they stay broken.
cr
😀
Yeah, per Wiki they even had heavier horses. Work horses I wonder??
Obama can never stop being the politician. Maybe 5 or 10 years after he is done but doubtful. Also, he is religious and can never give a proper criticism of any religion.
Whether it is saying something like Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or not recognizing the hypocrisy of going to the Mosque in the first place…he is just another politician.
In America we set the bar low and still cannot get over when it comes to politics.
In faiths such as Orthodox Judaism and Islam where the adherents are segregated by sex and women are treated as inferiors, I wonder how many women accept these conditions (and other acts of submission) as normal and would resist being treated as equals as somehow inimical to their faiths? Though not discussed as much as it should, this incident reveals that some faiths brainwash some of their members to think that being submissive to the will of misogynist men is somehow fitting and proper. Obama made a mistake going to this mosque.
“Former President Jimmy Carter left [the Baptist church] nine years ago … a primary reason he left was the denomination’s treatment of women. The Southern Baptist Convention says women cannot hold positions of leadership over men.”
Mormons likewise have only male bosses.
I don’t know how many religions have full gender equality, but probably most worldwide.
Well, one is a voluntary participation and the other isn’t. I have limited sympathy when someone is disadvantaged by their own superstitions.
For many deeply religious people their lives unfold in a closed environment. Their understanding of the outside world is very limited. They are exposed to only one worldview. This is true of ultra-Orthodox Jews in the United States. I suspect it is the same for many Muslims. So, to say that their participation in these faiths is voluntary is a stretch.
Kind of reminds me of living in rural Iowa.
Which I do…
Yes, we agree that there’s no such thing as free will, but we usually treat others in society as if they are autonomous agents. It can come across as patronizing when we don’t.
I’m not sure that the segregation of women in mosques is any more ‘voluntary’ than was segregation in the South. In both cases you face ostracism (or worse) if you don’t go along.
Hi Professor Coyne:
I think you may have misread the article you linked to about WHEN the segregation described happened. (Although it still doesn’t make the visit correct IMO)
Here are the portions with my emphasis in CAPS
“This PAST WEEKEND, dozens of girls and boys as young as about 8 years old ran up the stairwell to the main entrance of the musallah, or main prayer hall, of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, where PRESIDENT OBAMA VISITS WEDNESDAY”
“It’s too often only ON “INTERFAITH OCCASIONS” like the PRESIDENT’S VISIT that WOMEN AND GIRLS get to step forward INTO the “BROTHERS’ SECTION.”
On another note, in this same article it gives information that makes it look like this particular building was associated with the 911 attacks. If true, then this is another good reason that the President and his people should have been able to make a better choice.
women in conservative societies don’t have a lot of choice.
… also…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/oct/04/ultra-orthodox-gender-segregation-core-israel
The message is clear: “Islamphobia” – bad… Subjugation of women – good…
Rather than ‘good’ I think the message is ‘don’t care’.
Or, ‘I am oblivious to.’
Sub
In the past year or so, the left has been steadily alienating me. I’m still an atheist. I still support LGBT rights. There are so many ways in which I am not “conservative.” More and more, though, I feel like the left no longer represents me, not even in a “lesser of two evils” sort of way.
Politics is not something a person does alone. I’m not really sure what to do.
I really regret having written this because there are too many aggressive commenters on this thread. I can already anticipate someone telling me that Obama’s not that far left, which of course I already know. I’d appreciate it if everyone would just ignore this outburst.
Damn, I meant on this site, not this thread. Pardon me.
I’m not going to ignore you, I’m going to celebrate you. Further, it’s a bit of an indictment on our society that you feel unable to take such a reasonable position.
I’ve always considered myself liberal. I’ve come to the conclusion that many of those on the left aren’t really liberal. For a start, they usually don’t support freedom of speech – they are quite happy to shut down the opinions of those they don’t agree with. Stopping abuse has become shutting up anyone who doesn’t have the same values.
If we can’t win the debate because our arguments are better, there’s a problem.
Too many are forgetting what the values of liberalism are. They include gender equality, which should mean we stand against anyone that privileges anyone based on their gender, whether that’s male, female, or one of the other options.
I’m pleased Obama is standing up to the anti-Muslim bigots, but if he was determined to do it by visiting a mosque, he should have chosen a progressive one. Mosques where men and women, gay and straight, worship alongside one another are few and far between, but they exist.
Obama has given the same message as the LGBT and feminist groups at Goldsmith U gave when they supported the Muslim Brothers over Maryam Namazie.
Some apparently deserve equality more than others. Too often it’s the equality of women that is judged less important.
Sorry to rave on – this is an issue that’s important to me.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that many of those on the left aren’t really liberal. For a start, they usually don’t support freedom of speech – they are quite happy to shut down the opinions of those they don’t agree with. Stopping abuse has become shutting up anyone who doesn’t have the same values.”
My remarks are limited to the situation in the United States. The situation in your country may be different.
Unfortunately, language is ambiguous. We all use and are forced to interpret ambiguous language. You stated that “many on the left aren’t really liberals.” Exactly what do you mean by the word “many”? 10%? 50%? 90%? Here precision is important and the word has to be defined for this topic of discussion. If you think the description 10% qualifies as many, I would not. Perhaps, if we reached the 1/3 mark, I would consider the word “many” applicable. This would still be a minority.
Unless a reliable poll exists to back your definition of “many,” whatever it may be, then your assertions are meaningless. For example, I think that the vast majority of those on the left, who would refer to themselves as liberal, do support the freedom of speech. There is no greater defender of freedom of speech then the American Civil Liberties Union. But, my view, as yours, is based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence. In other words, it is mere opinion and scientifically invalid.
You raise a valid concern. We know that some on the left do not highly value freedom of speech. We don’t know how many. If the number is small, such as 10% of all who profess to be liberals, then in my interpretation of the data, we are just dealing with an insignificant number of agitators and the vast majority of liberals are being slurred. Unless reliable evidence in the form of a poll exists or will come to exist in the future, then we’re just talking out of our butts.
Taking my remarks as slurring all liberals when I am clearly identifying as a liberal myself is a misreading of what I’m saying. I had to re-read what I wrote several times before I could see this interpretation.
I’m not sure though how it’s possible to read posts such as Jerry’s one recently on freedom of speech suppression at British universities and think this is a minor issue.
I am a liberal. I worry that the values of liberalism are being lost. Your country has always been a leader in this area, and is big enough to dominate the narrative. I don’t think this is minor and it cannot be ignored imo.
I didn’t say you are slurring ALL liberals. What I said is that IF the percentage of liberals who don’t value free speech is small, such as in the 10% range, then you are slurring MOST (the vast majority) of liberals. Without reliable data, we have no idea as to what percentage of liberals support free speech or not. All we can do is guess, which tells us very little.
IMO most people (including liberals) don’t support free speech, in the sense that if they could push a button, and silence people who say things they don’t like they would do so. That isn’t true of a the minority (most of those who comment here for example) who recognize the importance of an open exchange of ideas as the best way of determining good ideas from bad ones.
I happen to agree with Heather’s assertion about those we identify as members of the regressive or authoritarian left; their numbers may be relatively small, but it’s worrying that a series of recent polls show less support for freedom of speech among college students and Democrats—groups that tend to skew to the left.
“Many” doesn’t mean “most.”
In fact, “many” can mean “most.” See definition below.
many
adjective
more , most
Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.
Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.
noun
(used with a pl. verb)
The majority of the people; the masses: “The many fail, the one succeeds” (Tennyson).
A large indefinite number: A good many of the workers had the flu.
Can, but doesn’t always.
To revisit the original point, the assertion that many on the left hold illiberal views doesn’t imply that most hold such opinions, which was the context for my reply. When she said many, she didn’t mean most.
The statement wasn’t pejorative, nor do we need to know an exact percentage to make the assertion accurate.
I fear that a significant number of liberals in the United States DO support censorship; what’s more, many of those who oppose hate speech don’t see themselves as supporting censorship at all.
need to see the exact survey questions…
Here are the polls:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
mclaughlinonline.com/2015/10/26/the-william-f-buckley-jr-program-at-yale-almost-half-49-of-u-s-college-students-intimidated-by-professors-when-sharing-differing-beliefs-survey/
Progressive mosque!!? Now that is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one!!
I did a post last year some time about two in South Africa, but it seems to have disappeared from my website. They had a lot of trouble from more traditional mosques trying to prevent them from even opening, but as far as I know they’re still going.
It’s ok. Even if someone disagrees w/ you you will not get flamed here.
Actually, I recognize your feeling. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan (even though I dont’ like to): ‘I did not leave the political left. The political left left me.’
That gets me to thinking about intellectual curiosity and Ronald Reagan. Did he leave it, or was it ever there for him to leave?
IMO he’s liberal in some ways but not in others. These are just my opinions, but here’s how I’d rate him:
Liberal on: abortion, gay rights, nationalized health care, oil pipeline, global warming, most foreign policy (while he does support US allied illiberal regimes, he has definitely put the emphasis on negotiation over war).
Not liberal on: police powers, executive power, search and seizure, privacy.
No real action either way on: corporate/business regulation, separation of church and state.
You are not alone in spotting this dichotomy. I think many atheists are left wing (whatever that means in each country – socialist, democrat, etc.), but cannot agree with the political leadership of the left pandering to religion. These leaders think they are being inclusive – to some extent they are, rightly acknowledging an adult is entitle to believe whatever they want (within socially-accepted limits).
However, the only fair path forward is for the left wing leaders to make a stand for secularism, starting with a more robust secular school curriculum. Children need an antidote to counter the religious indoctrination they receive at home, and the state is the only entity that can dictate those terms. Evolutionary biology is at the heart of such a secular curriculum, in my opinion and, judging by the efforts to corrupt biology education in certain US school boards, as well as faith schools in other countries, the religious seem to agree.
We need to keep things in perspective. Politicians, whether on the left or right, pander to voters because this is what they must do to get elected. Thus, left-wing politicians (Democrats) must periodically blather about how they support religious freedom. At the same time they routinely are critical of religious extremism, even of the Christian variety. Their policies are largely secular. Right-wing politicians (Republicans), on the other hand, are controlled by the religious right. The Republican party is the party of religion and we never forget this. For atheists to equate the two parties in regard to religious views is a very dangerous false equivalence. By and large, Democrats believe in a secular society, Republicans believe in a religiously immersed society with the government taking an active role in creating such a society. For people, and particularly atheists, who consider the maintenance of a secular society of paramount importance, they need to take the religious views of both parties into consideration when casting a ballot.
possibly more due to being victim of ‘creeping theocracy’ than to atheism itself, atheists most consistently advocate religious freedom.
The idea that a single axis of division for political concepts is adequate is increasingly being accepted as inadequate. For an example, there is a site I’ve mentioned here before called the Political Compass where they’re attempting to resolve opinions onto a left right axis and an authoritarian-libertarian axis.
You may find it interesting.
Yes, and even that simplifies things as there’s no reason why economic and social issues should be linked the way they are (at least in American politics). The upcoming election here is having interesting effects, especially on the Republican party, as Trump’s popularity is showing that many Republicans are not wedded to social issue conservatism. Another angle is foreign vs domestic policy. Rand Paul was the most “small government, hyper-capitalist” candidate in the field, but his isolationism made him VERY unpopular among Republican voters.
I agree about Paul. He’s standard con except on surveillance and on bombing everyone.
“Trump’s popularity is showing that many Republicans are not wedded to social issue conservatism”
Not really, because Trump has campaigned as typical con (gunz, biblez, bombz, etc). Trump has merely been more flamboyant than Ted Grim Reaper Cruz.
When I was younger, I often took place in political actions. I quickly came to the conclusion that I cannot afford the luxury to be picky about tactical allies. Mine have included people from the entire political spectrum, from far right to far left, Christians, Muslims, outcasts of the society, and visibly drunk people (at least, I hope they were only drunk).
We were at the proper place at the proper time, and nobody needed any other qualification.
Aggressive? … Who you calling AGGRESSIVE, HUH!?!!!1!1!!
🙂
Have any non-Muslim feminists complained, or would that be racist?
And I think I’m in love with Asra Nomani. She was great in that clip.
Mike, just as we recognize that traditional liberalism has been besmirched by the po-mo, authoritarian crowd, so is it with feminists. The loudmouths tend to get all the attentions but the Gloria Steinem, Susan Jacoby, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O’Connor. et al., traditional movement is still going strong. (I realize my examples are all from older generations, but that’s frankly because I just haven’t paid attention to who’s who in traditional feminism lately.)
A damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment for Mr. Obama.
I think of it more as sensitive on one issue and blind on another.
And rather surprising on his account, given that he’s often mentioned how big a role model his mother was to him, how in awe he is of Michelle’s intelligence and activism, how important it is that his daughters have every chance any US citizen should have to achieve what they desire…in short, how great an effect strong women have had on him.
A few years back, I visited a mosque in Cairo. It was pointed out to me that the men pray in one section, while the women had to pray in another. I asked several times why they had to be segregated, and the only real response I was given was that “women pray differently”.
Was it a man or a woman who said that, and how could they have known?
The only meaningful difference is that the former is protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, while the latter runs afoul of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth. Otherwise, both are morally repugnant.
I agree that Obama should have found himself a non-segregated mosque to visit. I nevertheless agree with his decision to visit a mosque — not an endorsement of religion, but as a show of solidarity with a beleaguered minority.
Dr. Coyne, thank you so much for keeping your readers informed about this blatant sexism.
And yes, I have found that it’s the right wing sites that most thoroughly and consistently report on these topics. It was right-wing sites where I first read about Cologne harassment, while the left-wing sites (BBC, NYTimes) were bottling it up.
Liberal sites need to talk about these things, otherwise the right owns the narrative, and they often infuse anti-Muslim bigotry into it. That, of course, creates a whole new set of problems.
… as is the intention.
It does suck that on regular occasions we find that outlets from the right are saying sensible things, and hewing to the constitution and even broad political correctness, while elements of the left have retreated. I feel I have to wash sometimes when I agree with something said on FOX news. Dammitt.
Just remember that for many on the right championing free speech is a Johnny-come-lately pose. Their opposition to censorship is entirely dependent upon whose ox is getting gored.
They have a long history of banning sexually explicit materials, opposing academic freedom, and expurgating inconvenient science and history from textbooks.
Their championing “free speech” is (entirely?) due to their own desire to inject religion where it doesn’t belong.
They report on these topics for the wrong reasons. Right-wing sources aren’t reporting that Obama visited a mosque because they’re concerned about gender equality. They’re reporting on Obama visiting a mosque because omg Obama really is a secret Muslim and/or the Muslims are taking over.
yep. tea stream media concern trolling. standard operating practice.
Alter lost the argument right away when he said that his religion segregates too. Even his calling it a blight served only to provide Nomani with a convenient term to use.
I have heard him criticized for excessive deference (as opposed to civility) to foreign leaders etc, and this would certainly this seems to be a case of that. The President, in his own country, needs to set standards.
Definitely a gaffe, but I don’t find myself worked up overmuch about it because I doubt he’s knowingly complicit. Call me an optimist, but I’d like to think that he didn’t know about the segregation because someone else did the arranging, and if he had known about it, he probably would’ve said “find a mosque that doesn’t separate.”
That’d be my guess too.
Now putting on my cynical hat, isn’t ‘Muslim feminist’ an oxmoron? (Yeah, I know Billy Bl already said that, but I thought it before I read it)
cr
Actually, no. There are many very brave women, singly or in organizations, that are working under great threat to themselves to improve the plight of women in their countries. These are the women who are running (often clandestine) schools for girls, demonstrating in Saudi Arabia for the right to drive, running for office in Muslim theocracies, creating shelters for abused women and runaway child brides, providing legal defense for victims in danger of draconian Sharia sentencing, and just in general risking their lives trying to improve the plight of Muslim women. These are the heroes.
And all credit to them.
But – leaving my sarcastic crack aside – is it possible to be a believing Muslim and also a feminist? I would have thought the Koran (which I have not read) would rule that out. Or are they, what we might call, cultural Muslims. Women who are stuck where they are in a theocracy, so they can’t just leave the religion.
cr
I’m sure there are both kinds, but many of the women interviewed in articles or online do insist they’re true Muslims. They’re the ones who find all the peace and love in the Koran. Christian women of course have equal cognitive dissonance, having to ignore many parts of even the most canonical Bible verses.
In a blurb I saw on this issue, it was mentioned that the Baltimore mosque was part of a network associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Presumably many other mosques are as well. I would have hoped that would have been a red flag for Obama’s selection. Couldn’t he have simply chosen a less corrupt wing of the organisation? There must be at least a few relatively liberal mosques within chopper distance of the White House.
Well, it won’t chap me if Major Garrett asks Obama about the separation of the girls at the mosque – IF the Major is not afraid of asking any question potentially besmirching The Religion of Peace.
I have never heard of a mosque that is not segregated by sex. Nor of a synagogue, for that matter. I remember, when I was a child and one of my nannies took me to Catholic churches, that the men were on one side of the church and the women on the other side, separated by the central alley between the pews. Things have obviously changed since then. In the Eastern Orthodox churches, there never has been segregation by sex.
vierotchka
I don’t know when you were a child but I think it is unlikely that you are older than me. I have never in the whole of my life known any Catholic church where the congregation was segregated and I have visited quite a few Catholic churches, both in Europe and in America.
I think your nanny must have taken you to Catholic churches in some other part of the world. I would really like to know where, and when.
It was in the early fifties in various parts of Switzerland.
Thanks.
If you remember the early fifties then you must be a bit older than me. All the same, I have been to Catholic churches from the fifties onwards in England, France, other European countries and America and have never seen a segregated congregation. I think the churches in Switzerland must have been very unusual. Of course Switzerland is in many ways an unusual country.
A few links I found doing a quick google:
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/09/20/men-and-women-sit-on-different-sides-of-the-catholic-church/
Second link: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/men-and-women-separated-during-church-service.1647009/
I will be 69 this year.
Third link (see point 7):
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.ch/2012/05/seperating-men-and-women-in-church.html
On a positive note, at least ex-Muslims and liberal Muslims are starting to get a forum in the MSM. They were literally invisible until the last few years.
With Asra Nomani getting multiple articles in the New York Times of late and getting on MSNBC, people are at least hearing the other side of the story instead of Obama’s disingenuous faith-bigotry binary, that has been the standard MSM and liberal media narrative.
I think the launch of the Ex-Muslism Council of Britain, Maajid Nawaz’s efforts, and the advent of Twitter have helped immensely.
I have found several ex-Muslims on Twitter that are by turns informed, witty, uncompromising, etc. Some of my favourites are:
Ali Rizvi
Aki Muthali
Iranian Atheist
Lalo Dagach
Eiyna
Saif Rahman
If the likes of Nathan Lean, Cenk Uygur, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, etc. annoy you, these are the people who fight back and leave the apologists sputtering when they can’t use the ‘racism’ smear.
Where are the armies of women marching on the UN demanding an end to FGM?
Where are the feminists when we need them?
Google FGM–you will find pages of organizations world wide that have mobilized to fight it. Here’s a USian one:
http://www.equalitynow.org/take_action/fgm_action611
Feel free to donate.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s foundation is also dedicated to eliminating the practice, along with honor killings, child brides, and other misogynist Islamic practices. Scroll down to the bottom of this page and see 3 very recent articles about FGM under NEWS.
http://www.theahafoundation.org/
(You can donate there as well.)
The answers to your question are at your fingertips.
That was a reply to word696969 @ comment 25 above, of course.
Obama’s speech was also a total whitewash of Islam, including exculpating Islam from any responsibility for ISIS: “We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda. And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values. It alienates Muslim Americans. It’s hurtful to those kids who are trying to go to school and are members of the Boy Scouts, and are thinking about joining our military. That kind of mindset helps our enemies. It helps our enemies recruit. It makes us all less safe.”
You can read my critique here: https://norighttobelieve.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/propagate-a-perverted-interpretation/