Nobels for Nothing, Sharia Gaffes, and Lisbon Updates

Apparently our Dear Leader is being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.  The rational questions of course are “Why?” and “For what?”   The answer to the former is “Because he’s the first Black president, and because he’s a European-style socialist.”  As cynical as that may seem, it’s actually pretty much the situation.  Here in Ireland, most of the people I’ve met seem to very much like Obama but are unable to articulate why they like him so much.  They always mention how he’s the historic first African-American president in a country with a long history of racial discrimination, but beyond that, they can’t name a single accomplishment of his aside from his being elected, and are usually shocked when told that his administration has even further polarized the electorate.

The Nobel Committee’s official reason is Obama’s efforts to reduce nuclear weapons worldwide and his efforts of diplomacy.  Of course, Obama will ultimately fail in ridding the world of nuclear weapons.  If anything, his surrender on the Eastern European missile shield, and his timidity vis-à-vis Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela have imperiled the world, not increased peace or stability.  Beyond the official reasons, one need only look at the previous American Nobel winners to see the politics behind this reward.  Last year saw the prize go to Al Gore, former Vice President, global warming alarmist (and hypocrite), and all-around nobody.  Before Gore, Jimmy Carter, one-term president, peanut farmer, and another incredible loser.  Both Gore and Carter are liberal Democrats, as is Obama, so even a child could see that this award is no longer about genuine efforts to ensure global peace, but a political endorsement and pat on the back from the smug European elites in Oslo.

More deserving choices for the award might have been the Dalai Lama, or one of the dozens of human rights and democratic advocates in China who have been imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted by the Communist regime; people like included Hu Jia, who exposed government corruption and the called attention to the plight of AIDS sufferers in China, and who has been behind bars for the last two years.

In perhaps a more outrageous Obama administration-related story, Obama’s Advisor on Muslim affairs, one Miss Dalia Mogahed, has said that Sharia law—Muslim religious law applied as law of the state—is “misunderstood”, and that a majority of the women of the world actually associate Sharia with “gender justice”.  While I’m not claiming this proof that Obama is a secret Muslim, I do think it evidence of the braindead politically correct, moral-relativist ideology of the Obama Administration, one that so ardently that all cultures and religions are equal that they are blind to all evidence to the contrary.

Just for the sake of clarity, allow me to quote the definition of Sharia, according to Wikipedia:

“Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means “way” or “path to the water source”. It is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Islamic law is now the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems of the world alongside common law and civil law.”

As if to punctuate that statement, this Wednesday a man was convicted in Saudi Arabia for bragging about his sex life on TV, and was sentenced to 5 years in jail and a public 1,000 lashes.  Of course, that is getting off easy by Saudi law, where, again, according to Wikipedia, “The Saudi legal system prescribes capital punishment or corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for certain crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, drug smuggling, homosexual activity, and adultery. The courts may impose less severe punishments, such as floggings, for less serious crimes against public morality such as drunkenness.  Murder, accidental death and bodily harm are open to punishment from the victim’s family. Retribution may be sought in kind or through blood money. The blood money payable for a woman’s accidental death is half as much as that for a man. The main reason for this is that, according to Islamic law, men are expected to be providers for their families and therefore are expected to earn more money in their lifetimes. The blood money from a man would be expected to sustain his family, for at least a short time. Honor killings are also not punished as severely as murder.”

Sharia law is far from progressive and humane, and I don’t see how, save for the most zealous belief in moral relativism, that an adult person could see it as anything but primitive, barbaric, sexist, and homophobic.  Imagine if a woman would have to bring four Muslim male witnesses to prove that she was raped, less she herself be accused of fornication or adultery and sentenced to death!  But that’s what Sharia dictates.  Under Sharia a man can divorce his wife via text message, but a woman needs witnesses and proof of abuse.

When people claim that Islamic law is progressive, they mean only in relation to the pre-Islamic tribal laws of Arabia, or perhaps European laws of the past, and that is true.  Mohammed limited polygamy, set rules for divorce and requirements for caring for one’s former wife, and gave women concrete rights.  But Islam also establishes women as inferior to men.  The blood price for women is half that of men, two women witnesses equal only one male witness, and so on.  And while a Muslim woman living in the 17^th Century might have had more legal rights than her European counterparts, but three centuries later, that wasn’t the case.  What is more, I am of the opinion that Western civilization, and, to a lesser degree, the dominant religion of Western civilization, Christianity, was the cause.  Look at Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  Does the Koran have anything anywhere near as radically egalitarian as that?  Granted, one could easily pull up some pretty misogynist Bible verses to counter that, I can think of one off the top of my head: Corinthians is full of them.  But the fact that the idea of equality is there, and has been there all that time, has had a real effect on Western civilization.  Now, in America and Europe, women can vote, own property, hold office, and have all the legal rights of men, whereas in the Muslim world, with the exception of secular Turkey, they are second-class citizens.  In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive, and in many Muslim nations are compelled to where the hijab (head scarf) and not to be in the presence of men in public.

So no, Miss Mogahed, I understand Sharia perfectly, and I think it is synonymous with sexism and barbarism, and that it would a great victory for human progress and human rights if it were abolished.  I am not attacking Islam, or the right of individuals, if they so choose, to obey the requirements of Sharia, but as an actual legal system, one that is imposed upon people against their wishes, I am adamantly opposed to it, and I despise the cruelty that it inflicts in the name of God.

On a final note, an update on last blog.  Last Friday Ireland passed the Lisbon treaty by a considerable majority.  The economic situation here changed many minds, as there were widespread fears that a second rejection of the toxic Treaty would lead to penalties from the overlords in Brussels, and decreased foreign investment.  Earlier this week, the Polish president, who had been holding out in the hope that Ireland would reject the treaty, gave his assent to the treaty, leaving only Czech president Vaclav Klaus the last European executive who hasn’t approved of the treaty.  Klaus needs to hold out until the British general election.  If the Conservatives win, and if Klaus has yet to ratify the treaty, then there will almost certainly be a referendum on the treaty in the UK, and, if the polls are even vaguely accurate, the treaty will be rejected.  If this happens, then the Irish vote will have not mattered, and, while the treaty will be rejected, Ireland will not be able to be blamed for it.  It is still too soon to tell, but, if Mr. Klaus stands firm and the Tories deliver on their promises, then this might all be resolved for the better.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=8788973

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.35512cbc2c2778646bd8bce1a73746c8.1e1&show_article=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/10/11/2009101100804.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8289920.stm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1006/1224255979963.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/07/saudi.sex.braggart/index.html