Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

What Does America Offer the World?

Musaed abu Kalil | 28.05.2004 09:04

A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women’s “emancipation,” that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional — better yet, an exorcist — rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of “American values.”

WASHINGTON, 27 May 2004 — “So, how do we advance the cause of female emancipation in the Muslim world?” asks Richard Perle in An End to Evil. He replies, “We need to remind the women of Islam ceaselessly: Our enemies are the same as theirs; our victory will be theirs as well.”

Well, the neoconservative cause “of female emancipation in the Muslim world” was probably set back a bit by the photo shoot of Pfc. Lynndie England and the “Girls Gone Wild” of Abu Ghraib prison.

Indeed, the filmed orgies among US military police outside the cells of Iraqi prisoners, the S&M humiliation of Muslim men, and the sexual torment of Muslim women raise a question. Exactly what are the “values” the West has to teach the Islamic world?

“This war ... is about — deeply about — sex,” declaims neocon Charles Krauthammer. Militant Islam is “threatened by the West because of our twin doctrines of equality and sexual liberation.”

But whose “twin doctrines” is Krauthammer talking about? The sexual liberation he calls “our” doctrine belongs to a ‘60s revolution that devout Christians, Jews and Muslims have been resisting for years.

What does Krauthammer mean by sexual liberation? The right of “teens” and teenage girls to dress and behave like Britney Spears? Their right to condoms in junior high? Their right to abortion without parental consent?

If conservatives reject the “equality” preached by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, NARAL and the National Organization for Women, why seek to impose it on the Islamic world? Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?

In June 2002 at West Point, President Bush said, “Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time and in every place.”

But even John Kerry does not agree with George Bush on the morality of homosexual unions and stem cell research. On such issues, conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats.

The president notwithstanding, Americans no longer agree on what is moral truth. For as someone said a few years back, there is a cultural war going on in this country, a religious war. It is about who we are, what we believe and what we stand for as a people.

What some of us view as the moral descent of a great and Godly republic into imperial decadence, neocons see as their big chance to rule the world. In Georgia recently, the president declared to great applause: “I can’t tell you how proud I am of our commitment to values. ... That commitment to values is going to be an integral part of our foreign policy as we move forward. These aren’t American values, these are universal values. Values that speak universal truths.”

But what universal values is he talking about? If he intends to impose the values of MTV America on the Muslim world in the name of a “world democratic revolution,” he will provoke and incite a war of civilizations America cannot win because Americans do not want to fight it. This may be the neocons’ war. It is not our war.

When Bush speaks of freedom as God’s gift to humanity, does he mean the First Amendment freedom of Larry Flynt to produce pornography and of Salman Rushdie to publish The Satanic Verses, a book considered blasphemous to the Islamic faith? If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong? When the president speaks of freedom, does he mean the First Amendment prohibition against our children reading the Bible and being taught the Ten Commandments in school?

If the president wishes to fight a moral crusade, he should know the enemy is inside the gates. The great moral and cultural threats to our civilization come not from outside America, but from within. We have met the enemy, and he is us. The war for the soul of America is not going to be lost or won in Fallujah. Unfortunately, Pagan America of 2004 has far less to offer the world in cultural fare than did Christian America of 1954 . Many of the movies, books, magazines, TV shows, videos and much of the music we export to the world are as poisonous as the narcotics the Royal Navy forced on the Chinese people in the Opium Wars.

A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women’s “emancipation,” that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional — better yet, an exorcist — rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of “American values.”

Musaed abu Kalil

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

for info

28.05.2004 12:29

try a religious eductional quiz at:
 http://www.landoverbaptist.org/quizlist.html

douglas g a murray


Dead Giveaway

28.05.2004 13:49

Whoops! All the author has succeeded in doing is revealing the intense similarities between the ranting ultra-right wing religious nutters (Muslim) that used to govern in Kabul and the ranting ultra-right wing religious nutters (Christian) that currently govern in Washington.

...Which is why we oppose both of 'em!

Sane Man


Re: What Does America Offer the World?

28.05.2004 14:48

As a non religious Brit I agree. A well written argument Musaed.

Anti-all-religion


Did you read it?

28.05.2004 14:54

It is not favouring the Yankkkes in Washington, it is against them!

Musaed abu Kalil


Garbage

28.05.2004 15:13

It preaches repression, prejudice, hatred, and censorship. The sooner such fundamentalist views wither away the better.

Andrew


Ho Hum

28.05.2004 15:27

... yet another pathetic attempt to somehow awaken an anti-Muslim nerve in the Left

The reposter-- some zioclown somewhere, aims to awaken a Johann Hari/Andrew Sullivan/Peter Thatchell (sp? ;-)) outrage. What he/she doesnt understand is that detesting fundamentalism has nothing to do with hating Muslims, nor does a lack of faith in Sharia law translate into any diminished hatred for Sharon's racist war against the Palestinians, or the British and American illegal and brutal occupation of Iraq.

Ghost Buster


Hidden

28.05.2004 15:53

This is a copy-and-paste of Pat Buchanan's latest fundamentalist rant. No thanks.

Post some news. Write something yourself.

Please refer to our editorial guidelines:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

cheers

an IMC admin


It just goes to show...

28.05.2004 16:43

that those who question the morality of abortion when used as a contraceptive, homosexual unions and the peverse sexualisation of children (i.e. the so-called “American values”) are not always 'religious right wing fundamentalists' after all. They are also ordinary people who are not deluded by any religious dogma.

Had you ever thought that just because Bush publicly apposes gay marrige doesn't actually mean he's anti-gay, it could just mean he is using a paradox to win votes. This is explained by the fact that only 2-3% of the population in America are gay. Hence he's probably just appeasing 'most of the people, most of the time' - whilst cleverly snookering anyone that dare question the morality of these so-called “American values” as they would ironicallys be seen as being supportive of Bush.

Anti-all-religion


Pat Buchanan is definitely a fundamentalist

29.05.2004 21:59

The article above is a repost of an "essay" by Pat Buchanan, a US far-right nutter, copied and pasted from Pat's own right-wing rant-site, "Worldnet Daily".
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38560

He might be anti-Neocon, but only because he thinks that they're a "Jewish conspiracy to undermine traditional US values". He's a Paleocon. The Paleocons are just as much a bunch of spooky right-wing fundamentalists as Bush's mob, and Pat is every bit as right-wing as the Neocons he's criticising. He just disagrees with them on methods, and on ownership.

They're two factions of the far-right, fighting it out for the supposed moral high ground. When the Neocon project goes tits-up, you should keep an eye on their nearest rivals: they'll be waiting in the wings, ready to step in.

You do have to wonder why someone posted this but changed the author's name to "Musaed abu Kalil". Is that Arabic for "fat right-wing dickhead"? Must consult a dictionary...

Ian