|
| AMERICAN LAURA BUSH |
| Wednesday, March 30, 2005 |
| Not So Pure
I love First Lady Laura Bush. If someone were to ask me to design the perfect first lady, I would respond, "Not necessary -- we already have one." Laura Bush appears to be strong, sweet, humble, smart, pretty, happy, optimistic, apolitical - all of the things I want a first lady to be. She's as close to being "pure" as a first lady can be.
That was yesterday. Today, she's not quite as pure, and I'm mildly disappointed.
Yesterday, Mrs. Bush flew to Afghanistan to do something she says she has wanted to do for a long time - to tell the Afghan women that America stands with them. Seems innocent enough. But it's not.
In Afghanistan and other Muslim nations, women don't have the same rights as men. That's changing in Afghanistan, and that's a good thing, as long as it's their idea and not ours. A recent 60 Minutes report on CBS focused on the progress of, or lack of, women's rights in Saudi Arabia. It was not surprising to hear the opponents of new rights for women accusing the United States of being behind the women's movement in Saudi Arabia - and trying to force U.S. values on their country.
They may be right, and even if they are not, we shouldn't give them ammunition to make the charge.
We Americans have become a very self-righteous lot. We didn't always give equal rights to women or minorities. Now that we do, we think everyone should follow our example, and we're not satisfied with just setting a good example. We think it's our role on earth to try to teach and persuade other countries to follow our example, as if we're the good parent and they are our children.
The world is not one family or one culture. It is a collection of widely varying cultures, each with its own set of evolving values, and each responsible for governing itself.
When we in the U.S. try to impose our values and culture on other countries, it is certain to breed resentment against us. Americans don't much appreciate it when European countries lecture us on such things as the death penalty - most of them don't have it and think it's barbaric. We don't much care what they think, nor should we. We also don't like it when our Supreme Court consults international court decisions when deciding the constitutionality of U.S. laws and actions. We're right not to like it.
We should treat others as we wish to be treated. I will be very pleased if the Afghan people and the people of Saudi Arabia observe life in the United States and decide for themselves that it would be good to copy some of our progress in areas of civil rights, but I have no wish to lecture or lobby them to that end.
Not only is it none of my business, but it fosters resentment that helps our enemies promote violence against American citizens. |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/30/2005 06:57:00 AM   |
|
| 8 Comments: |
-
Jack ,Jefferson said that All men are created equal. I take "All" to mean women also and not just men and women in the American colonies but on the whole earth.Preaching equality for women to other societys is not the imposing of values. It is only the revealing of a fundamental human right. Good for Mrs.Bush.
-
I understand where you're coming from, Right, but it's the equivalent of us yanks coming up there and telling Canada how to run their country (ie: shouldn't we let Quebec become their own country? After what Bertuzzi did, shouldn't hockey be banned?)
It's hard for you and me to understand why other nations out of common sense couldn't see the value of indigenous rights.
Equal rights is value-based, and often religious in nature. We can't tell muslim men and women what to do any more than we can tell India to dismantle the caste system. I guess I would have to invoke the Snipet motto and say that by preaching we would just annoy the pig--and we have found that this pig bites.
-
Jack, I think you are reading into Laura's statement too much. She was more or less offering verbal and moral support. I find it ironic that the people who "talk" about womens rights and human rights are the very ones who oppose us doing anything about human rights and womens rights. The Iranians have a custom of selling little girls into sex slavery. I guess we should stay out of their business since it is their custom. We shouldn't be opposing our values on those mullahs I guess.
-
My comment is similar to Glen's:
Jack, we stop people in other countries when they are clearly violating basic human rights. We stop (to some extent) the abuse of girls and young women via polygamy that is practiced by some hardcore Mormon sects (book recommendation on the Mormom subject: "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer). Why is it different to try to stop the Saudis from abusing women?
On the subject of Laura Bush: Why are righties so smitten with her? My mother-in-law thinks she's some kinda saint. I don't know that much about her, so I'd be interested to hear why y'all think she's all dat. (I must add, though, that she has excellent taste in dogs.)
-
Glen and Kathy,
Thanks for stopping by to comment. I see both of your points, but want to add a little for perspective.
Glen, first America has authored and continues to support one of the greatest genocides in the history of the world. Over 40 million executions over the last several decades. It amazes me the arrogant self-righteousness of our nation that we involve ourselves in the internal politics of a nation on human rights issues when we have a stain much larger than theres.
Invoking the Bible, (just because its good common sense) Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Many of these muslims have a much more strict code of life, honor, and discipline (albeit different) than even we do, and we presume to lecture them on human rights? Keep in mind the dynamics here. This is Laura Bush--wife of the most powerful leader on earth, entering a muslim country and lecturing its leadership on women's rights. I don't believe that its "reading too much" into the scenario, Glen. This will be viewed by ALL Muslims as just more American imperialism and dogma.
In all reality we should have Afghans leaders coming here to America and lecturing us on infanticide--and how about the slow execution of Terri Shaivo, or the endorsement and support of sodomy? But our response would be, "who are THEY to lecture US on human rights!"
Does this make sense?
There is another consideration. The intent of these people is to exterminate us. Yes, Muslim leaders admit that only 10% of muslims hold this radical view, but if one counts that up its 100 million muslims (1/2 the population of the United States) intent and supportive of our death. Mrs. Bush just adds fuel to the fire by her action--every American arrogant enough to involve themselves in the politics of these people risks stoking the fire.
I don't think Mrs. Bush was ill intended. I think she had every good intent, but it was not carried out with much thought. For her to involve herself with a foreign lobby (a woman of her stature and symbolism) is dangerous, and too my knowledge I am unaware of it happening in the history of our nation. I think this nation has enough weeds in our own yard before we start being concerned with our neighbors. Her action strikes me of Hollywood-grade activism--the same kind of stuff I would expect from Danny Glover (Cuba) or Steven Speilburg.
Of course thats just my personal and Biblical opinion.
Kathy, I think the "righties" are smitten with Mrs. Bush because she embodies the characteristics they value. Sort of the same reason that "lefties" are smitten with Mrs. Clinton. Also I have read MUCH about the Mormons--a truly weird bunch! :)
Thanks again for your comments, guys!
-Jack
-
Jack, based on the facts stated in your article I don't believe that Laura Bush is lobbying or lecturing by going to Afghanistan to tell women there that we stand with them ( support them ). I think that it's more a case of promoting freedom than it is saying in a self righteous way to " follow the way we do it...we do it the right way ". I would think that the Afghan women would need and welcome all the support they can get based on how they've treated in the past. I believe Jefferson said something to the effect that resisting tyranny is obedience to GOD
-
CD, thanks for chiming in!
(BTW, CD is a good friend of mine)
I realize what Jefferson said, but how about our friend Paul?
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
I realize on an emotional level it seems like what Mrs. Bush did was right, but again I have to maintain that this is a dangerous precedent and a statement about our nation. Hillary Clinton didn't even involve herself in the affairs of other nations. Mrs. Bush is the wife of the president, not our Secretary of State.
-
I don't know that Hillary is a good person to use as an example....do you? : )
Did Laura go to Afghanistan as the president's wife, the secretary of state or as a " fellow woman " in support of the freedom of other women.
She didn't go over when the Taliban was still in power...did she?
If her visit is looked down upon by the Muslim World..or if she is the first First ( :) ) Lady to ever go to another country to stand up for the human rights of others....would that make it a bad thing?
But, on the other hand if what Laura did is another step towards a " One World " government or order...then " Come Lord Jesus! "
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Jack ,Jefferson said that All men are created equal. I take "All" to mean women also and not just men and women in the American colonies but on the whole earth.Preaching equality for women to other societys is not the imposing of values. It is only the revealing of a fundamental human right. Good for Mrs.Bush.