Is There Islamophobia in America?

Whoever introduced the notion of “hate and Islamophobia” in America’s national discourse has done this country a disservice. For one, it goes against the grain of what America stands for. America's spirit of tolerance is grounded on the key principle of equality, indeed, one of the principle pillars upon which this nation of immigrants was founded. The principle of equality requires that we respect each and every human being as our equal inasmuch as each is bestowed with God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- natural rights that all men acquire by virtue of their being human. It is this very principle that enables immigrants in America to live in harmony with one another. It is the principle that afforded the civil rights movement an opportunity to offer a corrective to America’s unfinished business with slavery. Equality is what has prevented America from sliding into a country of ethnic and racial divisions so commonly found in countries reeling from ethnic conflicts.

Talks about hate and Islamophobia have put America on the defensive. When President Obama cast the debate on the GZ mosque issue in constitutional terms such as religious liberty, he put the US Constitution on the defensive. But the US Constitution is not on trial here. America is not on trial here. What he succeeded in doing was to change the subject of our national conversations, from whether belief-systems and subcultures of incoming immigrants eager to settle in this country could be made compatible with America’s culture of liberty, to whether America is acting contrary to its Constitution when it deals with these beliefs and whether Americans have become hate-mongers and Islamophobic!

John Esposito, professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, thinks that indeed there is Islamophobia in this country. In this article, “Islamophobia in America: Where Do We Go from Here?,” he says that Islamophobia like anti-Semitism, hostility towards or discrimination against a person because of their faith or racial group, runs deep in our society.”

But it wasn’t so prior to 9/11. A recent NY Times article, “Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life,” tells the story of Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, a construction worker who was hired to work at the World Trade Center before it was attacked. Being a Muslim, he wanted to know where he could do his daily prayers. He learned from his fellow Muslim workers about a prayer room on the 17th Floor of the south tower. He went there regularly for months, "first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer." He noticed that on any given day, his companions in the prayer room “might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.”

If it seems we are experiencing racial and religious divisions in our country right now, it is because of those who have talked us into it. Labeling is a dangerous game. Whenever one gives a label or a name to something, he gives life to it; he makes it happen. Hate-mongering and Islamophobia have now become part of the American lingo.

On Drug Legalization and Mexico’s Drug War

Proponents of drug decriminalization strongly believe that Mexico’s drug war could come to an end if marijuana were made legal. Drug legalization, they argue, could instantly eliminate crime and violence and reduce the loss of lives. By legalizing it, businesses surrounding drug smuggling would disappear, thereby diminishing the cartels’ immense profits (60 % of which come from marijuana) that are being used for recruitment, arms purchases, and bribes. In addition,

. . . legalizing marijuana would free up both human and financial resources for Mexico to push back against the scourges that are often, if not always correctly, attributed to drug traffickers and that constitute Mexicans' real bane: kidnapping, extortion, vehicle theft, home assaults, highway robbery and gunfights between gangs that leave far too many innocent bystanders dead and wounded. Before Mexico's current war on drugs started, in late 2006, the country's crime rate was low and dropping. Freed from the demands of the war on drugs, Mexico could return its energies to again reducing violent crime.

Of course, those who oppose drug legalization especially from this side of the border question the social costs that come with legalizing drugs inasmuch as legalization will increase drug consumption. Are these drugs inherently addictive? If so, what will be their long-term effects on individual health and social well-being? Will drug consumption lead to other kinds of crimes? Will it lead to lung diseases the way cigarette smoking does? Will drug consumption impact families and cause social problems that will lead to the creation of more welfare programs? James Wilson, professor of political theory and senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College, has brought up these arguments in this old article, “Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse." In a book review published by the Claremont Review of Books, he argued that social taboos against drug consumption work: “more generally, addiction is less common when the values of the culture are hostile to it and more common when those values erode. One of the ways society makes its values clear is by making actions against those values illegal and reserving praise for people who act in accordance with them.”

To be convincing, proponents of drug legalization must offer a thorough cost-benefit analysis of drug decriminalization against drug prohibition, including estimates of future social costs that may possibly come with increased drug consumption. Likewise, those who continue to believe in the wisdom of drug prohibition must look into why the war on drugs seems to be not succeeding at all.

In a way, all this represents the classic tension between individual rights and the common good. Introducing individual responsibility into the equation that would make individual rights compatible with the common good is, of course, a winning combination.

“Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone”

The fate and life of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery, hangs in the balance. In July, due to international pressures, Iranian authorities indicated they might not carry out stoning for the time being, but the woman could still face execution by hanging.

Stoning is an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. It is barbaric. The Vatican, in a public statement issued recently, condemned it as a brutal form of punishment. Sajad, the widow’s son, has made appeals to Pope Benedict XVI, and the Vatican is using its diplomatic channels to stop the execution.

Talks about hypocrisy and self-righteousness and unchecked clerical power on the part of Iran’s moral guardians may come across as Western pontificating. So, I’ll turn to prayers instead, hoping that Christ’s teaching on this subject may teach spiritual leaders of other faiths that God’s mercy is as human as it is divine.

1 Jesus went to the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the middle, 4 They say to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say you? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more. [John 8:7]

Still On a Campaign Mode

I hope these things are just coincidental. But I have been noticing that in areas where the current Administration is weak, like the economy, its officials are quick to condemn the Bush Administration (which, to be fair, had its share of bad decisions that had contributed to our current economic woes). But in areas where the Administration thinks it is gaining ground, like the Iraq war, it is quick to claim credit, regardless of what the Bush Administration has done early on during the war, especially in 2006 when Iraq was slipping into a quagmire, amidst a spiraling ethnic-driven civil war.

Indeed, the Obama economic team is on the defensive these days, in light of disappointing news about the country’s economic recovery this summer, which, according to this WSJ article, is a result of current bad economic policies. Their line of defense hinges on blaming the economic mess they believed they inherited from the previous Administration. In today’s CNN interview, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said that at the onset they did everything they could to address the housing crisis that was at the core of the financial crisis, with good results, but did add that the economic recovery is now being slowed down by a new challenge that has cropped up since, namely, unemployment. However, the job problem is now on their watch. It was a problem pleading attention as early as middle of last year. But instead of focusing on how to bolster the job market, the Administration spent a significant amount of its political capital persuading Congress to pass a health care legislation.

Come Tuesday, when US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq, I anticipate that the Obama speech will take credit for and claim victory over the Iraq war.

While governing involves being wise and decisive in decision-making, it also entails being responsible for the consequences of its decisions, of owning things up, be they good or bad. It is giving credit where credit is due and admitting mistakes if mistakes are made. If a regime makes decisions based on what is politically expedient, it is not governing. It is campaigning for that political power to remain in its hands.

Political Stalemate in Iraq

In his recent trip to Baghdad, Vice-President Joe Biden urged Iraq’s political leaders to get on with the business of governing as the post-election deadlock has prevented elected officials to form a new government. Biden’s message is urgent particularly because U.S. combat operations are winding down and a significant number of U.S. troops are set to leave Iraq soon. Biden recommended that all sectarian groups play a meaningful role in the formation of the new government, although Ayad Allawi, one of the contenders for the prime ministership, said that Biden did not really offer specific proposals on how to break the stalemate. His answer was, “well, it’s up to the Iraqis.”

Well, it seems it’s not up to the Iraqis. They couldn’t do it. If they could, we would not be witnessing such political wrangling and blatant display of power-grab among elected officials. Perhaps no one is giving in because to do so would be tantamount to political suicide. Perhaps they are afraid of each other. Perhaps Iraqi institutions are not strong enough to overcome Iraqi factions’ fractious self-interestedness.

And perhaps the solution lies outside, far from Iraq’s toxic political climate. Why not form a 10-man international commission of decent and thoughtful human beings (whether they be former leaders of nations or technocrats or academics or businessmen, or all of the above, combining from within themselves knowledge and practice, philosophy and politics, vision and strategies) to act as a caretaker government for one year to lay down the fundamentals of a functioning, free, and prospering Iraq with complete objectivity, professionalism, a sense of justice, and a genuine disinterestedness for the well-being of all Iraqis? I’m sure reasonable and fair Iraqi officials will not find the idea too far-fetched.

Citizen Watch in Mexico

President Felipe Calderon’s call for citizen participation in his campaign against the cartels is a smart move, especially because the nature of the game is changing: the cartels are no longer just trafficking drugs, they are usurping the powers of the state. In today’s Washington Post article, Calderon said, “The behavior of the criminals has changed and become a defiance to the state, an attempt to replace the state.” Indeed, there is an atmosphere of fear in the country, and the criminals seem to be gaining the upper hand, ruling like warlords, Mafia-style. In this campaign, Calderon is asking the public to be vigilant and to report to the authorities anyone who may be involved in protecting the cartels, whether they are prosecutors, judges, police, mayors, or governors.

At stake is nothing less than the sovereign will of the Mexican people. In a republican setting, a people’s sovereign will gets translated into a vote for a government that rules by people’s consent. The usurpation of state powers by illicit criminal organizations threatens this democratic arrangement, where the rule of law is replaced by the rule by men, and the constitutional order by force and intimidation.

“We have an organized crime and a disorganized society,” said Calderon. For a respectable country with a great historic past, Mexico cannot allow the mob to gain the upper hand. As it is, the mob is making the country move backward instead of forward. A strong yet responsible government co-opting an enlightened citizenry can put an end to it.

“Why the Left remains politically insignificant”

William Esposo of Philippine Star reproaches the Philippine Left for being ineffective in selling their ideology to the Filipino people. In his attempt to explain why Filipino communists remain politically insignificant, aside from the influence of the Catholic faith in Filipino thinking, he also argues that Filipino communists have not really succeeded in branding and selling their product effectively:

With their decision to participate in the electoral process, we had hoped that the Extreme Left will finally evolve to something more palatable to Filipino political sensibilities. Alas, they still behave like the proverbial old dog that is already incapable of learning new tricks. They’ve not changed their rhetoric. They’ve not changed their venue, the streets. They’ve simply refused to change and try to be acceptable.

. . . What makes our Leftists most pathetic is that they’ve become anachronistic and they do not even know it. If they had an iota of marketing sense, a grasp of strategy, they should have evolved already into a new and acceptable political brand and product.

. . . The best marketing organizations will not even attempt to repackage what is already perceived as a bad product. That would be wasting good money in trying to salvage something bad. They would rather create a new brand and get a fresh start that will be unencumbered by a negative association.

But it’s not the branding that is marginalizing the Left. It’s much, much more than that! It’s the nonsensical worldview of the communists and the futility in their argument that simply cannot pass the scrutiny of reason. For any commonsensical, hard-working Filipino, these communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to the Filipino people.

Their typical argument revolves around their messianic mission of liberating the Filipino people from “the shackles of U.S. imperialism,” regardless of the means to achieve it. Indeed, its leadership, Jose Ma. Sison, has repeatedly argued that the root cause of all the problems in the Philippines could be traced to its long history of foreign dependence on America’s imperial domination, and, as a consequence, to the plunder of the country’s resources and the exploitation of its cheap labor by greedy American multinational companies.

But where is the evidence for this? In fact, study after study indicates that global trade (yes, via those greedy MNCs) contributes to Asia’s economic growth. While multinationals reap profits in the Philippines, as any corporation should, they provide jobs and technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers, thereby contributing to the country’s economic growth.

Rather, as Third World scholars would agree, the factors that cause Third World underdevelopment are the following: endemic graft and corruption among local politicians, ethnic wars, lack of capacities, skills, and attitudes that encourage individual responsibility, lack of strong institutions and the rule of law, and the pervasive influence of certain cultural values and religious beliefs that are anathema to progress and prosperity.

Filipino communists have nothing to offer but their long record of crimes committed against the Philippine government, the Filipino people, and foreign nationals caught in their ideological war. At least during the three decades of war that they have waged against the country, they are responsible for, among others : a) the loss of thousands of civilian and military lives killed in one way or another during this insurgency; b) the political instability that has disrupted the country’s economy through loss of investor confidence (Philippine economic growth has been one of the slowest among Southeast Asian countries), and, consequently, to loss of jobs and government revenues; c) the diversion of tremendous amounts of government resources designated for social services (such as education) towards supporting anti-insurgency military operations.

Instead of asking why the Philippine Left has remained politically insignificant, I think the proper question to ask is why the Philippine Left continues to exist. It should have been banished from the intellectual, moral, political, and economic landscapes of the country a long time ago.