In the past weeks Muslims around the world have been offended, hurt and upset as a consequence of Westerners feeling the need to stress their freedom of expression — but for what reason?

Except for a few details, the recent incidences have had remarkable similarities with something we have seen before: the short film ‘Submission‘, made in 2004 by Theo van Goghon, a Dutch film director, and Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi and the Mohammed Cartoons incident by a Danish newspaper in 2005, which caused the Arab world to boycott Danish-produced goods like dairy products. These are just a few of the examples to be mentioned.

Most Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world keep their feelings to themselves and their family and friends, or express them in a peaceful way – just like many Westerners fail to comprehend the purpose of publishing that type of material, time and again. However, it seems like a controversy that we, on both sides, are forced to witness again and again which makes it valuable to investigate some potential underlying dynamics for the recent incidents.

According to Politiken.dk, a feeling exists in the Arab world of differential treatment practiced by Western Governments; examples include that Western Governments support free will except in cases where Islamic parties win elections. They fight for human rights except in countries where the oppressor is a dictator who cooperates with the Western world; Western Governments support freedom of religion, except when it concerns Islam.

Additionally, Western politicians continuously make hostile comments about Muslims and Islam. This is reinforced by my research (to be published in Arab-West Report in April 2013) on the migration of Egyptians where Muslims indicate that they feel as second class citizens in their own country next to expats living there. At the same time they feel unwelcome in Western countries such as the U.S.A. and several European countries.

So while Western countries claim they are fighting for equal rights, freedom to be whoever you are, as well as the right to control your own life, it easily comes across as the exact opposite in the countries that are the target for that fight.

Politiken.dk continues that while the mentioned examples by people in the Arab World are perceived as differential treatment and interference, Western Governments understand it as isolated reactions to specific incidents. This could be related to what Charles Clay Lemert, Professor in Sociology, characterizes as ‘colonization’ in his book Sociale Forhold -En indføring i det sociologiske liv (2004), which he defines as the process where people with power and money get the idea that their theories and perspectives of the world gives them the right to take over other countries, their assets and sometimes even the soul of the native people, who rarely are in a position to defend themselves.

And it is all justified by the perception that the invasion will result in a better moral, a better political system, and in general a better way of living. But according to whom?

If the world is believed to be a social construction that only makes sense in relation to the society in which it exists, it makes sense that people around the world have not only different ways of living, but more importantly different perceptions of what ‘the better way of living’ is. No doubts that people in the Arab world are dreaming about a better world, as witnessed during the Arab Spring that last year permeated in several Arab countries. We are still, at the time of writing, witnessing how Syrians fight against the local regime, or how Palestinians continuously experience their rights to land reduced — but is this battle a cry for the Western world to free them from Islam, Islamist or Islamic values?

Without a doubt there is a perception in the Western world that politics and religion should be two separate entities in a modern society, anno 2012 — or is there? Maybe it is more the perception that politics and Islam should be separated? This leads back to the imagination of the world as a social construction: if we acknowledge that different people have different perceptions of ‘the better way of living’, it might again be reasonable to assume that different societies have different ways of structuring a democracy.

Can democratic values not be implemented in a religious society? It is true that according to the construction of democracy that exists in the Western world, it is difficult entities to unite, but Egypt and the rest of the Arab world have a different way of constructing their societies. In this light it might be fair to assume that the construction of a democracy, in these countries, would contain different elements than what we see in Western countries’ understanding of democracy -elements that focus less on freedom of expression and more on mutual respect and the right to practice your religion.

However, as Ahram Online writes in an article on their English website, the challenges may lay in the rapid development of technological tools that connect the world, crossing societies of different social constructions. This means that a film like that of the recent controversy can be made and distributed online in Western countries where legislation is developed in the context of Western social constructions, without repercussions. One such filmmaker, or a cartoonist for that matter, may be perceived as offensive to a group of people but cannot be indicted for a criminal act, because one segment of the world does not perceive it as such.

However, in the same breath it must be stressed that individual action, like the ones discussed here, does not represent perceptions, opinions or acts of neither entire populations nor every politicians. But because of societies based on different social constructions of what is legal and what is not, a Western politician cannot demand the person behind such material brought to trial. But does this mean that Western countries should consider reversing their understanding of democracy and put restrictions on what can be expressed and what cannot?

As one of the focal points for democracies in Western countries it is hard to see that happen. Being a Westerner, brought up in the social constructions of a Scandinavian country, it is believed that having the freedom to speak up against the current government, the practices of the church, or other societal institutions that are disagreed with, is a crucial fundamental right, which should neither be restricted nor jeopardized.

But does this give the people in Western countries the right to offend the values of people in countries where social constructions of societies are different?

With an economic crisis dominating most of the Western world, it might be time to start rethinking what used to be ‘the center of the world’ – to a growing extent, the Western world depends on countries and people around it. It may be worth considering if respecting other cultures’ way of life wouldn’t be more productive than upsetting them purposefully.

Image Courtesy of  arindambanerjee / Shutterstock.com

The article Reflections on Yet Another Mohammed Conflict appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Tampa, U.S.A. — On August 20, Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of Liberty Institute, and Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, officially released The Survey on Religious Hostility in America at a press conference during Platform Week at the Republican National Convention.

Simultaneously, they launched an interactive website at www.religioushostility.org, where more than 600 cases of religious hostility, most occurring during the past decade, are documented and available for public download.

Whether a federal judge threatens a high school valedictorian with incarceration for referring to Jesus in her graduation speech; a city official prohibits senior citizens from praying over their meals; or the U.S. Department of Justice tells churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis they can hire and fire, attacks on Americans’ religious freedoms have dramatically increased, both in frequency and in the types of incidents.

On the site, the public can view a U.S. map that contains a sampling of the 25 most egregious incidents of religious hostility. There is also a place to share personal stories of religious discrimination, and a photo gallery representing more than a dozen groundbreaking cases.

“There is really no place you can go in America to avoid these chilling attacks—every community and every age group is affected,” Shackelford said. “We have hundreds of examples. It’s more prolific than we’ve ever seen in the history of our country.”

Perkins added, “As our country enters one of the most critical elections of our time, it’s vital that people of all faiths continue the important work of defending our most precious liberty.”

In 2004, The Survey of Religious Hostility in America was born when Shackelford, along with a number of Liberty Institute’s clients, testified before the U.S. Senate about the growing religious hostility in America. Because the opposition insisted these select testimonies were simply isolated incidents, Senators Kennedy and Cornyn asked Liberty Institute to provide additional information, which led to the development of the first hostilities document.

Led by President and CEO Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Institute is a nonprofit law firm, dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America — in our schools, for our churches and throughout the public arena. Liberty Institute’s vision is to reestablish religious liberty in accordance with the principles of our nation’s Founders. For information, visit www.LibertyInstitute.org.

Since 1983, Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and public opinion. President Tony Perkins and his team of seasoned experts promote these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization.

Through outreach to pastors, FRC equips churches to transform the culture. Strategically located inWashington, D.C., FRC is the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power. For information, visit, www.frc.org.

Image Courtesy of   Bocman1973 / Shutterstock.com

The article 600+ Attacks On Religious Freedom in U.S.A. Revealed appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney’s campaign, in the beginning, was focused on criticizing President Obama for the way he handled the economy during his entire presidency, which Republicans consider to be a complete disaster. However, in recent weeks Romney’s campaign has changed, and has started to criticize Obama in various other aspects. Freedom of religion and the welfare reform are some of the new topics that have appeared in Romney’s campaign.

Many members of the Republican Party have been complaining that economic criticism won’t be enough to take Obama out of the White House. These Republicans think Romney should press Obama in more controversial areas, and that’s what Romney’s latest ads are doing.

The ad called ‘Be not afraid’ accuses President Obama of declaring “war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith.” An example is that catholic sponsored entities like schools have to cover contraceptive methods in their employees’ insurances. The ad says that Mitt Romney is the one who truly “shares your values.” This is an ad dedicated to some of the Republican Party loyalists. The ad’s final statement is very suggestive: “When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?”

Republican consultant Keith Appell stated “I understand the economy is the top issue, but you don’t want to be so maniacally focused that you ignore everything else.”

He added that “”there’s always a risk of becoming too focused — a horse with blinders — and not seeing some of the other things around you. Campaigns need focus. But there’s something to be said for peripheral vision when you’re trying to hold a coalition together.”

Romney needs to raise the  social conservatives’ enthusiasm and religious voters that preferred a figure like Rick Santorum and have been skeptical with Romney. But, in the end they will vote for him, because they are not willing to vote for Obama. Ads like the religious freedom one are the type of things that will definitely excite the Republican’s conservative base, which has been very quiet during the campaign so far.

Also, a recent Mitt Romney ad called ‘Right choice’ recently accused Obama of trying to gut Clinton’s welfare reform, which required recipients to work to receive welfare. The ad claims that Obama is intending to drop the work requirements. The Obama campaign has defended the accusations with another ad called ‘Blatant.’ ‘Blatant‘ quotes the New York Times and the Washington Post, saying that Romney’s ad accusations are false.

The ad continues saying that what Obama is in fact doing is “getting states to move 20% more people from welfare to work” requirements. The Obama ad quotes Bill Clinton, saying Romney’s ad is “just not true.” Obama’s ad is being shown in seven key-state battlegrounds.

Obama’s campaign counterattack against Romney hasn’t taken long to be seen. An ad called ‘Son of boss,’ which criticizes Romney’s tax record, has been released.  The ad narrator questions how much Mitt Romney has really paid in taxes, whether that be 10%, 5% or 0%. The answer of the narrator is: “We don’t know.”

The article Romney Attacks and Obama Responds appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A new Mitt Romney ad is accusing President Obama of endangering the religious freedom in the nation. The video invokes Pope John Paul II and criticizes that Obama is forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs because of his contraception coverage rule.

Romney’s ad is not the first or the last time Barack Obama will be accused of threatening religious freedom in the United States, many have already expressed their rejection for Obama’s health-care reform claiming it violates freedom of conscience.

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post opinion columnist, explained that Obama’s health-care reform was forcing the Catholic institutions to pay for an insurance that would cover abortive drugs, which is clearly against the Catholic Church fundamental beliefs.

In this new reform Catholic churches and their direct employees are exempt from the rule, but other Catholic-sponsored entities, among which we can find schools and hospitals that employ non-Catholics are non-exempt from the rule. So they are forced to complain or to pay fines in order to avoid the rule that is against their faith.

Timothy Dolan, Wall Street Journal Opinion columnist, said “Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government.” Dolan quotes many of the nation’s founding fathers defending freedom of conscience; he wrote that George Washington declared: “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them,” and added that James Madison also said that “conscience is the most sacred of all property.”

What Dolan criticizes more is the fact that Obama’s administration proposed a religious employer exemption, but this is very narrow because it only applies to religious organizations that mostly serve people of their own religion. Dolan says the Obama administrations has refused to exempt other religious institutions like schools, charities or hospitals, from this rule, which mandates the employers to purchase contraception methods.

Some critics also think the Catholic Church is exaggerating, the L.A. Times editorial states: “Is religious freedom suddenly under attack in America? That’s what the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops and some non-Catholic allies would have you believe. But reports of the demise of this fundamental liberty are greatly exaggerated.”

But the Romney ad has taken advantage of all the criticism Obama has received, a narrator in the video says, “Who shares your values? President Obama used his healthcare plan to declare war on religion,” and adds that “Mitt Romney believes that’s wrong.”

Image Courtesy of  marcn

The article Romney Ad Accuses Obama of Threatening Religious Freedom appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.