The Politics of Faith: Even religious significance of Palestine is tainted by politics.

Islam and the West

16 Apr 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com

The Politics of Faith: Even religious significance of Palestine is tainted by politics.

... we all know that Jerusalem and Palestine overall, is the ultimate journey of the faithful, at least the monotheistic faithful. Unfortunately, in a place like Palestine, politics clouds over even this. Pope Benedict XVI will visit Israel/Palestine in May, travelling through Nazareth and Jerusalem. He will not, however, travel to the Gaza Strip, which does not sit well with, if the petition is accurate, 2,000 people. Mostly Roman Catholics but also Muslims, Buddhists, humanists and even atheists have signed a petition put together by members of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, the University of San Francisco, and several other peace groups in the United States, calling for the Pope to travel to the Gaza Strip. "The people of Gaza in large part represent 'the least among us' today," reads the petition, in reference to Christ's penchant to "visit, eat and listen to the least among us." According to Caritas, Jerusalem, a Catholic organization in the city, many Christian Palestinians felt that if the Pope does not visit Gaza, he should not come at all. The Vatican has yet to give any indication of a change in the Pope's itinerary, which does not include the beleaguered Strip. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that even the religious significance of Palestine must be tainted by politics. As we speak, Jewish extremists continue to force their way into the Aqsa Mosque to perform Passover prayers, with complete disregard to the Muslim majority. It was acts like these that first started the uprising back in 2000 and if we are not careful will certainly lead to more bloodshed in the future. As long as the rights of one group – Palestinians both Muslim and Christian – continue to be swept aside for the rights of another, there can never be conciliation, religious or otherwise. -- Joharah Baker URL of this page: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1331  ----------------------- 'It is unfortunate that even religious significance of Palestine must be tainted by politics.'   The Politics of Faith By Joharah Baker   It occurred to me the other day as I as browsing the internet that this conflict is so entangled with details, biases and religious undertones that it is no surprise we are so far from a solution.   I innocuously came upon a travel advertisement on MSN entitled "Journeys of Faith." The writer, who generously provided the readers with an attractive slide show of the aforementioned destinations, had narrowed down the world's 13 most significant destinations for the most faithful. Of course, upon seeing this, I thought, no doubt, my beautiful country would certainly occupy at least four or five of these. How could it not? They don't call it the holy land for nothing.   As I clicked my way through the slideshow, I was taken to exotic destinations in France, Mexico, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States. What? No Jerusalem? No Nazareth or Bethlehem? It couldn't be. Then, somewhere wedged between Mecca and Lourdes, France was Jerusalem. Ahh, of course, the slide that came along with it could be no other, could it? This was MSN. Religious Jews praying at the Western Wall, piles of Torahs on a table behind them. The text did not make me feel any better.   "Situated at the crossroads of nations and cultures, Jerusalem is a focal point for many religions, particularly Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The city has been the holiest Jewish city for more than 3,000 years."   Bam. Politics enters everything, even this slideshow of faith. To be fair, there were other mentions of Jerusalem's religious distinction further down after an elaborate historical description of the Western Wall. Here is the last line.   "Other holy sites in Jerusalem include the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. "   I was appalled. How is it that the place where Christ is said to have been crucified and subsequently resurrected not be given proper recognition? How could the supposed rock where Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven, thus revered as Islam's third holiest site not be given space?   As I continued to click through the slide show, I was sure I would at least come upon Bethlehem, where Christ was born. That for sure, was a "journey of faith" any devout Christian was sure to make. Again, I was disappointed and appalled. Was it because the editors would have to mention that Bethlehem was located in Palestine? Or that it was occupied by Israel? For whatever reason, it seems utterly ridiculous that the Nativity Church did not make the list of 13.   It all comes down to politics, doesn't it? How much bad rap would MSN get if they mentioned Jerusalem and instead of putting a picture of the Western Wall had posted the hundreds of thousands of Muslim worshippers at Friday noon prayers at Al Aqsa? In the twisted logic of political agendas, this would mean sidelining Jewish dominance and more importantly trumping it with Muslim significance. That, apparently, would lead to issues such as rights in Jerusalem, inadvertently implying that Muslim or Christian rights overrode those of Jews. And that, as we all know, is a major no-no for the West.   Slide show or not, we all know that Jerusalem and Palestine overall, is the ultimate journey of the faithful, at least the monotheistic faithful. Unfortunately, in a place like Palestine, politics clouds over even this. Pope Benedict XVI will visit Israel/Palestine in May, travelling through Nazareth and Jerusalem. He will not, however, travel to the Gaza Strip, which does not sit well with, if the petition is accurate, 2,000 people. Mostly Roman Catholics but also Muslims, Buddhists, humanists and even atheists have signed a petition put together by members of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, the University of San Francisco, and several other peace groups in the United States, calling for the Pope to travel to the Gaza Strip. "The people of Gaza in large part represent 'the least among us' today," reads the petition, in reference to Christ's penchant to "visit, eat and listen to the least among us." According to Caritas, Jerusalem, a Catholic organization in the city, many Christian Palestinians felt that if the Pope does not visit Gaza, he should not come at all. The Vatican has yet to give any indication of a change in the Pope's itinerary, which does not include the beleaguered Strip.   It is unfortunate, to say the least, that even the religious significance of Palestine must be tainted by politics. As we speak, Jewish extremists continue to force their way into the Aqsa Mosque to perform Passover prayers, with complete disregard to the Muslim majority. It was acts like these that first started the uprising back in 2000 and if we are not careful will certainly lead to more bloodshed in the future. As long as the rights of one group – Palestinians both Muslim and Christian – continue to be swept aside for the rights of another, there can never be conciliation, religious or otherwise.   The sad part in all of this is that historically, these three religions peacefully coexisted once upon a time. Pre-Israel, Jews lived side by side with Muslims and Christians, shared land and food, history and culture. It was the onset of Zionism, the usurpation of an entire homeland from beneath the feet of its original inhabitants and the politicization of a religion that was once just that, which ultimately ruined any hope for reconciliation. Add to this the clear bias of the world in favor of Israel and by proxy, the Jewish claim to this land, and we have a very complicated situation indeed.   I am not very religious, nor do I believe that any one religion has a monopoly over faith, monotheistic or otherwise. I am however, fiercely Palestinian and with that identity comes an affiliation to what I believe is a history stolen from us. I know my words cannot change the balances of power that make such injustices against the Palestinians possible. I do hope, however, that when, for example, you come across a slide show portraying the "journeys of faith" you will not forget that the Western Wall is just a tiny slice of the religious significance of this city, that Muslims and Christians have laid claim to it for centuries and that Israel, no matter how strong it is today, can never obliterate that claim. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15015 - Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org. (Published in MIFTAH – www.miftah.org) URL of this page:  http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1331 Islam and Human Rights 15 Apr 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com The Free World Bars Free Speech   Defend the right to offend the religious   Ever since 2006, when Muslims worldwide rioted over newspaper cartoons picturing the prophet Muhammad, Western countries, too, have been prosecuting more individuals for criticizing religion. The "Free World," it appears, may be losing faith in free speech. ... History has shown that once governments begin to police speech, they find ever more of it to combat. Countries such as Canada, England and France have prosecuted speakers and journalists for criticizing homosexuals and other groups. It's the ultimate irony: free speech curtailed for the sake of a pluralistic society.... Religious orthodoxy has always lived in tension with free speech. Yet Western ideals are based on the premise that free speech contains its own protection: Good speech ultimately prevails over bad. There's no blasphemy among free nations, only orthodoxy and those who seek to challenge it. -- Jonathan Turley URL of this page: http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1330  -----------------------------   The Free World Bars Free Speech By Jonathan Turley   Sunday, April 12, 2009 For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. Late last year, two Afghan journalists were sentenced to prison for blasphemy because they translated the Koran into a Farsi dialect that Afghans can read. In Jordan, a poet was arrested for incorporating Koranic verses into his work. And last week, an Egyptian court banned a magazine for running a similar poem.   But now an equally troubling trend is developing in the West. Ever since 2006, when Muslims worldwide rioted over newspaper cartoons picturing the prophet Muhammad, Western countries, too, have been prosecuting more individuals for criticizing religion. The "Free World," it appears, may be losing faith in free speech.   Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.   Emblematic of the assault is the effort to pass an international ban on religious defamation supported by United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. Brockmann is a suspended Roman Catholic priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister in the 1980s under the Sandinista regime, the socialist government that had a penchant for crushing civil liberties before it was tossed out of power in 1990. Since then, Brockmann has literally embraced such free-speech-loving figures as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he wrapped in a bear hug at the U.N. last year.   The U.N. resolution, which has been introduced for the past couple of years, is backed by countries such as Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive nations when it comes to the free exercise of religion. Blasphemers there are frequently executed. Most recently, the government arrested author Hamoud Bin Saleh simply for writing about his conversion to Christianity.   While it hasn't gone so far as to support the U.N. resolution, the West is prosecuting "religious hatred" cases under anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws. British citizens can be arrested and prosecuted under the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to "abuse" religion. In 2008, a 15-year-old boy was arrested for holding up a sign reading "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" outside the organization's London headquarters. Earlier this year, the British police issued a public warning that insulting Scientology would now be treated as a crime.   No question, the subjects of such prosecutions are often anti-religious -- especially anti-Muslim -- and intolerant. Consider far-right Austrian legislator Susanne Winter. She recently denounced Mohammad as a pedophile for his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha, which was consummated when she was 9. Winter also suggested that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than have sex with children. Under an Austrian law criminalizing "degradation of religious doctrines," the 51-year-old politician was sentenced in January to a fine of 24,000 euros ($31,000) and a three-month suspended prison term.   But it is the speech, not the speaker, that's at issue. As insulting and misinformed as views like Winter's may be, free speech is not limited to non-offensive subjects. The purpose of free speech is to be able to challenge widely held views.   Yet there is a stream of cases similar to Winter's coming out of various countries:   In May 2008, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with a cartoon that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who meet at an anti-gay rally and want to marry.   Last September, Italian prosecutors launched an investigation of comedian Sabina Guzzanti for joking about Pope Benedict VXI. "In 20 years, [he] will be dead and will end up in hell, tormented by queer demons, and very active ones," she said at a rally.   In February, Rowan Laxton, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, was arrested for "inciting religious hatred" when, watching news reports of Israel's bombardment of Gaza while exercising at his gym, he allegedly shouted obscenities about Israelis and Jews at the television.   Also in February, Britain barred controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders from entry because of his film "Fitna," which describes the Koran as a "fascist" book and Islam as a violent religion. Wilders was declared a "threat to public policy, public security or public health."   And in India, authorities arrested the editor and publisher of the newspaper the Statesman for running an article by British journalist Johann Hari in which he wrote, "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a 9-year-old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him." In India, it is a crime to "outrage religious feelings."   History has shown that once governments begin to police speech, they find ever more of it to combat. Countries such as Canada, England and France have prosecuted speakers and journalists for criticizing homosexuals and other groups. It's the ultimate irony: free speech curtailed for the sake of a pluralistic society.   Even countries that the United States has helped liberate have joined the assault on free speech, rejecting the core values of our First Amendment. Afghan journalist Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh was sentenced to death under Sharia law last year just for downloading Internet material on the role of women in Islamic societies that authorities judged to be blasphemous. The provincial deputy attorney general, Hafizullah Khaliqyar, has been quoted as saying: "Journalists are supporting Kambakhsh. I will arrest any journalist trying to support him after this."   Not only does this trend threaten free speech, freedom of association and a free press, it even undermines free exercise of religion. Challenging the beliefs of other faiths can be part of that exercise. Countries such as Saudi Arabia don't prosecute blasphemers to protect the exercise of all religions but to protect one religion.   Religious orthodoxy has always lived in tension with free speech. Yet Western ideals are based on the premise that free speech contains its own protection: Good speech ultimately prevails over bad. There's no blasphemy among free nations, only orthodoxy and those who seek to challenge it.   After years of international scorn, the United States can claim the high ground by supporting the right of all to speak openly about religion. Otherwise, free speech in the West could die with hope of little more than a requiem Mass. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040903155.html contact author at: jturley@law.gwu.edu   Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University. URL of this page: http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1330