Can Freedom and Religion Co-Exist?
Bill Maher was on Larry King Live tonight (Tuesday) and he gave an interesting answer to a question from a caller about spreading "freedom" around the world. He said there are some cultures and nations who don't want our kind of "freedom" to rule the day, and I believe he is right.
President Bush is fond of saying "Freedom is on the march" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but how many people in those countries want to be like the U.S.? Of course they like our wealth and resources and living standards, but on a cultural and social level, are they ready for some football (or Starbucks or Playboy or whatever)?
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of an Islamic country that is becoming schizophrenic. On one hand, the Saudi royal family bathes in the fortunes that oil has brought to the country with fancy homes and fancy cars and a loosening of the previously strict standards of fundamental Islam (behind closed doors). Yet, members of the controlling Wahabi sect patrol the public streets and malls, making sure women stay covered up and nothing inappropriate collides with the modernization of their country. The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and most reject American culture and what we would call "freedom". We may soon see the day where a Wahabi uprising topples the Saud royal family.
I don't see how we can import "freedom" into most of the countries in the Middle East, no matter how many bombs or troops that we throw at them.
Thoughts? Comments?
To avoid this turning into a semantic argument, let's assume that my definition of "freedom" is good ole American-style freedom - hot dogs, baseball, apple pie and strip clubs.
President Bush is fond of saying "Freedom is on the march" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but how many people in those countries want to be like the U.S.? Of course they like our wealth and resources and living standards, but on a cultural and social level, are they ready for some football (or Starbucks or Playboy or whatever)?
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of an Islamic country that is becoming schizophrenic. On one hand, the Saudi royal family bathes in the fortunes that oil has brought to the country with fancy homes and fancy cars and a loosening of the previously strict standards of fundamental Islam (behind closed doors). Yet, members of the controlling Wahabi sect patrol the public streets and malls, making sure women stay covered up and nothing inappropriate collides with the modernization of their country. The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and most reject American culture and what we would call "freedom". We may soon see the day where a Wahabi uprising topples the Saud royal family.
I don't see how we can import "freedom" into most of the countries in the Middle East, no matter how many bombs or troops that we throw at them.
Thoughts? Comments?
To avoid this turning into a semantic argument, let's assume that my definition of "freedom" is good ole American-style freedom - hot dogs, baseball, apple pie and strip clubs.
posted by cvo @ 8:46 PM
3 Comments:
At 6:40 PM,
R said…
This is essentially the "Clash of Civilizations" argument. This was a book from the mid-to-late 90s by a guy named Samuel Huntingdon, who is among the most highly respected scholars in the Old School (Kissinger, Nixon, and that crowd). A counter-argument is from "Jihad vs. McWorld" by Ben Barber, who argues that a Clash is not inevitable, that although there is trouble to come, free trade and (home-grown) capitalism will ultimately save the day; this was kind of the Clinton crowd's policy. Now, I read these books several years ago, so my memory may be suspect, and I am way oversimplifying the arguments, and both were written pre-9/11, so as everyone says "everything has changed." So read them yourselves; they are both very good. It seems to me that our current policy is to selectively embrace parts of both views: we agree that there is a Clash, and we are helping to bring it on, so that we can install our own version of an even more lasseiz-faire version of Capitolism than we have here.
At 8:44 PM,
cvo said…
Interesting.
I have not heard of those books. I will see if I can find them. I'm on a non-fiction tear right now anyway.
Another good current example of a "clash of civilizations" is happening right now in the Netherlands where more than a million Muslims have emigrated in the past few years. The Dutch have been graceful in trying to assimilate the Muslims into the country while maintaining their lassez-faire attitudes about everything else, but it backfired when a controversial director, Theo Van Gogh (great-grand-nephew of Vincent), was gunned down and stabbed by an extremist Muslim responding to a short film that addressed some of the problems with fundamentalists in general.
It has really shaken up the Netherlands and left them wondering if they should be so tolerant of their new residents anymore.
At 9:26 AM,
cvo said…
I agree with Lark that people in other countries should have the "choice" to create their own version of freedom instead of having their freedoms dictated by totalitarian regimes.
I think I take issue with our administration trying to sell us on the "march of freedom" as the reason why we're risking the lives of our own soldiers and killing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and other countries. Ask the 250,000 refugess who had to flee their homes in Fallujah and now have nothing to go home to and no running water or basic services because we leveled it. I don't think they're going to be very responsive to our messages of "freedom". If anything, they will join the insurgents we were trying to crush.
I was never against us going into Afghanistan because I do believe in payback and the Taliban clearly provided shelter and protection for Bin Laden who was clearly tied to the 9/11 attacks. If you don't retaliate against an attack like that, you would never be able to retain your position as a superpower. The justification for removing Saddam Hussein was bogus and the way we did it and didn't anticipate the chaos and insurgency afterwards is unbelievable. That's why this whole "march of freedom" mantra from the administration is really bugging me.
Just tell me that we're there to secure the oil flow out of the Middle East - not just from Iraq but other countries that could have been affected by Saddam. Just tell me that Saddam wouldn't accept the World Bank's offers of high-interest loans so he could become our fionancial slaves like so many other countries are (just look through the list of the Coalition of the Willing for some examples). Just tell me that you (Bush administration) saw a great opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars for your buddies at Halliburton and Bechtel so you invaded instead of listening to the advice from your military leaders who told you it was a bad idea.
I have no idea if Clinton would have been so forthcoming in a war situation like this, but I have a feeling we wouldn't have been in a war like this under him in the first place. 9/11 probably would have happened anyway (although that's debatable), but I don't think we would have reacted the same way.
As far as Bill Maher is concerned - he's smug, over-the-top and oh-so-righteous (in a non-religious way) but on his HBO show, he has had some pretty interesting guests like Andrew Sullivan and Noam Chomsky and he had a volatile exchange with former senator Alan Simpson a few weeks ago that was a classic (I think it's still circulating on the internet). I never really liked his Politically Incorrect show on Comedy Central or ABC, but I do enjoy his HBO show even if it is a little heavy-handed.
Post a Comment
<< Home