November 16, 2008
Erika Stutzman, for the Daily Camera editorial board:
Another break in the wall:
Honor separation between church, state
The First Amendment — worded to give Americans freedom of speech, freedom of and freedom from religion — created a “wall of separation between church and state,” according to Thomas Jefferson.
And throughout our history, that wall has been bolstered by the courts, which have rightfully used to it to balance between the laws of the land and its inhabitants — devoutly religious, non-religious and everyone in-between.
Who in their right mind would want to tear it asunder?
If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to preach from the pulpit — rail, even — against gay marriage, the wall should protect it. If Catholic priests want to do the same against abortion, the wall provides them ample shelter. …
But religious groups — tax-exempt on their side of the wall — cross the line when they directly try to interfere with passing laws and the election of politicians. …
And the Mormon church directly told its members to work to pass the anti-gay-marriage amendment, Proposition 8, in California by volunteering their time and money. That’s not a sermon against gay rights: It’s an appeal for money and a campaign to enact a specific state law.
The separation of church and state has served this country very well. For the various groups that will try to topple that wall: Look to countries with religious rule and ask what it is about those countries that you admire.
Consider that you can be a Muslim in America, and wear the veil if you wish, attend services as you like, and celebrate religious holidays without fear of government retribution. The same cannot be said for Catholics or Mormons in Saudi Arabia. In fact, if a Saudi citizen converted to either, he could — by law of the land — be executed.
Admirable? …
More at the link.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
California,
Catholicism,
Christianity,
Church-State Separation,
Civil Rights,
Free Speech,
LDS/Mormons,
Marriage,
Middle East,
Proposition 8,
Religion & Spirituality,
Saudi Arabia,
United States
April 21, 2008
LONDON — April 21 — Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship of women and policies of sex segregation stop women from enjoying their basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Saudi women often must obtain permission from a guardian (a father, husband, or even a son) to work, travel, study, marry, or even access health care.
In a 50-page report, “Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia,” Human Rights Watch draws on more than 100 interviews with Saudi women to document the effects of these discriminatory policies on woman’s most basic rights.
“The Saudi government sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women,” said Farida Deif, women’s rights researcher for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch. “Saudi women won’t make any progress until the government ends the abuses that stem from these misguided policies.”
The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being. Saudi women are similarly denied the legal right to make even trivial decisions for their children. Women cannot open bank accounts for children, enroll them in school, obtain school files, or travel with their children without written permission from the child’s father.
Saudi women are prevented from accessing government agencies that have not established female sections unless they have a male representative. The need to establish separate office spaces for women is a disincentive to hiring female employees, and female students are often relegated to unequal facilities with unequal academic opportunities.
Male guardianship over adult women also contributes to their risk of confronting family violence, making it difficult for survivors of violence to avail themselves of protection or redress. Social workers, physicians, and lawyers told Human Rights Watch about the near impossibility of removing guardianship even from male guardians who are abusive.
And even where permission from a male guardian is not mandatory or stipulated under government guidelines, some officials will ask for it. Despite national regulations to the contrary, some hospitals require a guardian’s permission to allow women to be admitted, agree to medical procedures for themselves or their children, or be discharged.
Officials do not always follow limitations on the power of guardians imposed recently by the government. Despite an Interior Ministry decision allowing women over 45 to travel without permission, airport officials continue to ask all women for written proof their guardian has allowed them to travel. Travel restrictions can also be humiliating for many women.
Fatma A., a 40-year-old Saudi woman living in Riyadh, cannot board a plane without written permission from her son, her legal guardian. “My son is 23 years old and has to come all the way from the Eastern Province to give me permission to leave the country,” she told Human Rights Watch.
A Saudi woman’s access to justice is also severely constrained. Women continue to have trouble filing a court case or even being heard in court without a legal guardian. Women are required to wear a full-face veil (niqab) in court and be accompanied by a male relative able to verify their identity. Saudi Arabia has established no minimum age of criminal responsibility for girls, while the authorities generally decree puberty as the threshold for treating children as adults.
“It’s astonishing that the Saudi government denies adult women the right to make decisions for themselves but holds them criminally responsible for their actions at puberty,” said Deif. “For Saudi women, reaching adulthood brings no rights, only responsibilities.”
By failing to eliminate these discriminatory practices, the Saudi government is failing in its commitment to guarantee women and girls their rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, health, and equality in marriage. In doing so, the Saudi government ignores not only international law but even elements of the Islamic legal tradition that support equality and full legal capacity for women.
Human Rights Watch calls on Saudi Arabia to take immediate action to address the human rights abuses resulting from male guardianship policies. The Saudi government should abide by its international obligations and dismantle this grossly discriminatory system. The king should establish an oversight mechanism to ensure that government agencies no longer request permission from a guardian to allow adult women to work, travel, study, marry, receive health care, or access any public service. The authorities should establish female sections or other accommodations in every government office and courtroom in order to ensure women have equal access to every level of government.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Press Releases,
Saudi Arabia,
Women
October 30, 2007
Saudi King jeered as controversial visit begins
King Abdullah II of Saudi Arabia was greeted by jeers and placards as he began his state visit to Britain this afternoon as dozens of demonstrators turned out to protest at his country’s human rights record.
About 50 human rights protestors and anti-arms trade activists mingled with the crowds lining The Mall as the monarch accompanied the Queen in a carriage on their way to Buckingham Palace.
King Abdullah’s visit has been shrouded in controversy over oppressive policies against women and gays in the Middle Eastern kingdom and the war on terror.
Protesters, including Peter Tatchell, the gay rights activist, chanted “King Abdullah, torturer, murderer” and held banners marked “Put human rights before BAe profits” and “You can’t do this in Riyadh” as the procession went past.
. . .
Symon Hill, of the Campaign Against The Arms Trade, said: “I think the visit sends the message that the UK Government isn’t concerned about human rights in Saudi Arabia. It also sends the message that the Government will put the arms trade and BAe ahead of human rights.”
He criticised Gordon Brown for condemning human rights abuses in Burma and Zimbabwe, but saying nothing about the Saudis. …
As Tyo wisely observes: “Let’s face it, there are bad badguys and good badguys and the Saudis are one of the ultimate teflon coated good badguy states. As long as the oil and the business ties are there they can have their public beheadings and their lashings and fund all the terrorists that they want and no matter who occupies #10 Downing St or the White House there won’t be an official word said against them.”
See also:
Translation: The U.K. is Scared Britless That the Saudis Will Pull Their Money Out of the Country
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Corruption,
Saudi Arabia,
United Kingdom & N.I.
October 28, 2007
Saudi king’s state visit to Britain faces protests, boycotts
Britain’s most sensitive and controversial relationship in the Middle East faces protests and boycotts during a state visit by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, just weeks after a lucrative new defence contract made clear that it was business as usual between the two countries.
The Saudi monarch and his most senior ministers will be the guests of the Queen at Buckingham Palace during a visit that will include a ceremonial welcome on Horse Guards Parade, two banquets and meetings with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Prince Charles.
But Vince Cable, the acting Liberal Democrat leader, announced yesterday that he would boycott the rare visit because of the Saudi record on human rights, including its maltreatment of British citizens. “It is quite wrong for the British government to have proposed a state visit at this time,” Mr Cable said. Other groups plan protests over weapons sales, the kingdom’s human rights abuses and its homophobic laws.
King Abdullah, 82, came to the throne two years ago. Known as “the Custodian of the Two Holy Places” (of Mecca and Medina) he has reformist instincts, but progress in the kingdom has been halting.
Saudi Arabia is Britain’s biggest trading partner in the Middle East and the UK is its second biggest foreign investor.
The four-day visit, which begins today, was announced months after the Serious Fraud Office was forced by Tony Blair’s government to drop - on alleged national security grounds - an investigation into alleged corruption tied to BAE arms sales to Saudi Arabia, part of the massive al-Yamamah deal. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Corruption,
Saudi Arabia,
United Kingdom & N.I.
September 22, 2007
Wayne Besen on Crazies For Christ:
The Washington Post had a fascinating series last weekend discussing the rise of a movement representing “nonbelievers.” The trend is worldwide, but is also taking root in America, one of the most religious western nations. As radical fundamentalism has spiraled out of control, many people are standing up and loudly declaring that there is simply too much God permeating our society.
According to the Post, the Atheist Alliance International’s membership has almost doubled in the past year to 5,200. Its membership is mushrooming to the point where its national convention in Crystal City later this month has a 500-person waiting list.
. . .
The surge in political atheism is clearly a reaction to the utter obnoxiousness of today’s fundamentalists. No matter what the religion, these fanatics have made it clear that they have a God-given right to rule the earth and subjugate anyone who does not sing from the same hymn sheet.
The Middle East, of course, is the manifestation of such sectarian madness. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks God wants his country to have a nuclear bomb. This may lead to George W. Bush, who has his own messiah complex, to bomb Tehran. In Saudi Arabia, the government lops off peoples’ heads if they are deemed to have pissed off Allah (homosexuals make the list). In Iraq, it seems everyone is tuned into the God channel and speaks on his behalf. In Israel, meanwhile, ultra-orthodox Jews believe that God has given the “chosen people” all of the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. But, Palestinian fanatics swear that Allah intends for Muslims to eradicate Israel. With so much God, peace doesn’t stand a prayer.
. . .
This week, our homegrown fundamentalists took center stage with two creepy events in Florida, an important swing state. On Tuesday, they hosted the “Values Voter Presidential Debate,” where lunatics were allowed 24-hour leave from the asylum to ask presidential also-rans their plans to bring our nation back to the Stone Age. …
. . .
The second event is the Family Impact Summit, a three-day hate-a-palooza in a Tampa suburb where a throng of right wing ideologues will mix with “ex-gay” leaders to plot how to take control of America. To counter the event, Equality Florida will hold a press conference and a rally outside the church where the Summit is being held. …
While the fundamentalists fulminate in Tampa, the Post article mentioned one statistic that should worry them. While six percent of people over sixty have no faith in God, one in four adults ages 18-22 have no such faith. I believe this number will only grow as long as “Crazies for Christ” whose main value is vindictiveness represent”God’s people.”
With lots of reader comments at the link.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
"Ex-Gays",
Atheism/Agnosticism,
Florida,
George W. Bush,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel-Palestine,
Middle East,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Saudi Arabia
April 21, 2003
Evangelical charities with an overt hostility to Islam are preparing to distribute food, water, medicine and building materials in Iraq, all in the name of Jesus.
One of the charities, Samaritan’s Purse, is run by Franklin Graham… Another is the Southern Baptist Convention, whose former president once described the Prophet Mohamed as “a demon-possessed paedophile”. About 800 of SBC’s volunteers are reported to be on their way to Iraq to deliver food packages labelled with a verse from St John’s Gospel, in Arabic, saying that “grace and truth were realised through Jesus Christ”.
Such insensitivity is viewed by some as playing into the hands of those to whom the “war on terrorism” is a religious crusade. But what really riles Muslim groups all over the world is that these activities are overtly supported by the Bush administration. …
Franklin Graham has a record of hostility to Islam and unabashed proselytising, even where it is illegal. After the 1991 Gulf War, he infuriated Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of Operation Desert Storm, by shipping tens of thousands of Arabic-language New Testaments to Saudi Arabia in defiance of Saudi law and the US-Saudi military alliance. …
Such gusto has won [Franklin] many friends in the Republican Party, including Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who has joined him on missions in Sudan. And he is a popular figure on the fundamentalist right _ an important Bush constituency that loves the idea of good versus evil and a president ordained by God to lead America in tough times. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Christianity,
George W. Bush,
Iraq,
Islam,
Radical Religious Right,
Saudi Arabia
April 18, 2003
A. A good start.
Okay, so there are good, honest lawyers out there. But it’s lawyers like these who bring countless bad-lawyer jokes to mind:
After months of working below the radar, a huge U.S. legal team hired by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has sprung into action and begun a major counteroffensive against a landmark lawsuit seeking $1 trillion in damages on behalf of the victims of the September 11 terror attacks…
I know, I know — somebody’s got to defend them — just as somebody’s got to clean sewers and mop up homicide scenes.
But I’d rather clean sewers and mop up homicide scenes than be on the defense team for the country that sired, funded, and harbored 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers (and the country whose long history of human-rights violations and Taliban-like “punishments” are glossed right over — and thus allowed to continue — by those who have the most to lose in the oil game).
And if I had to put my trust in lawyers, my money would be on Ron Motley and Alan Gerson.
Still, the likelihood of the 9-11 families winning this one is grim; the Saudis are into the U.S. for some $750 billion.
That equates to $1,250,000,000 (that’s one and quarter-billion U.S. greenbacks) per family represented in the lawsuit.
Do you think the Bush administration puts that kind of value on a single life — or 600 lives — or 2,800 — or 275 million?
Neither do I.
My prediction: The 9-11 families will lose.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Saudi Arabia,
September 11
