Regarding Ted Theodorsen’s comments on the subject last week, several observations about his assertions and claims:
“Organized religions… are at least mildly autocratic,” and “Organized religions are not very democratic and are certainly anti-female.” Hmmm… perhaps, and so what? Organized religion is an attitudinal and behavioral system of faith and worship that one joins freely and whose commandments, precepts and rules one accepts or one doesn’t. They are hardly social clubs where members get to vote on what they like or don’t, what they will abide by or won’t, and whom they will admit or not. Embarrassingly laughable comments.
As for democracy, Aristotle, a truly original mind, categorized governing in terms of the rule of one (Monarchy), the few (a Republic) and the many (Democracy). He deemed the latter the worst form, as it gave ignorant masses a sense of entitlement, power and superiority, way beyond their abilities and capacities, which, by the way, Churchill largely agreed with. But what did they know?
My larger point was that the East has little, if any, tradition of democracy (Kipling’s insight) and trying to impose it upon them, for their own good, is nothing but a fatuous conceit typical of busybodies lacking prudence and wisdom, such as Woodrow Wilson, George Bush and people who think like they do.
As for the tale of ‘Rape in Dubai’, a word of caution. Firstly, rape is a capital crime in the Persian Gulf and punishable by death which is imposed and carried our within a matter of months. Stone cold reality! Secondly, when the western mainstream media is in the hunt, beware their four horsemen of journalism: gossip, hearsay, innuendo and rumor. Of course when one wants to grind an ax, repeating an unsupported “he said/she said” AP/Oslo headline, is predictable.
(Ed. note: Marte Dalev, the Norweigan rape victim, was pardoned of her conviction, but the archaic sexual assault laws in the UAB remain unchanged).
Lastly, regarding Mustafa Kemal, his words are sufficient to demolish the canard that he “targeted Islam.”
Rising in the National Assembly in March, 1924 he stated that, “Our religion of Islam will be elevated when it ceases to be a political instrument of the state.”
Those words mark more than one of the many monuments to him, overlooking the Bosporus in Istanbul. What he did was separate “church and state” by prohibiting the Sharia Courts from imposing their will in non-religious matters.
His target was the remnants of the Ottoman Caliphate, still strong among the bureaucracy, which had politicized Islam for centuries. His vision was to prevent Turkey from becoming an appendage of the British Colonial Office.
Distinctions clarify while generalities muddle.
Tom Coffey
Herricks
