|
as noted, you equate right wing extremist versions of Islam with the entire belief system.
by your way of thinking, all Christians and all Jews embrace the most extreme faction of their religions, and both of those extremes advocate the same sort of theocracy and repression of women that their partners in crime in Islam do.
Unfortunately, in this country we have had "good religious people" who have consistently been on the wrong side of the important social issues of our time and before.
the Bush league is allied with these very same forces, who want to restrict women's lives in this country.
The only reason they have not been allowed to get away with this is because of the secular foundations of our nation, based upon Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality, and humanity.
Even those foundations could not overcome issues like a woman's right to vote, or a black person's full humanity against the tide of religious repression of their eras.
It has taken years of education to undo some of the damage caused by religious indoctrination, The task is not over, and must be reiterated with each generation.
As mentioned before, look up articles online about the guy, a rep. from California, and about the way the repukes were so in love with the Taliban because they seemed like "moral people."
They supported a regime which institutionalize the repression of females.
It's just like the repukes in Chile, in fact. The same issue, with a different face.
Repukes assassinated liberal leaders, Letelier, Gen Rene Schneider, supported a coup against Allende, installed a MURDEROUS, HORRIFIC criminal, Pinochet...
and why? Because the people of Chile voted Allende into office and threatened Pepsi and Exxon.
They supported the Taliban for the same reason, and didn't care what happened to females in Afghanistan.
so they have NO MORAL AUTHORITY to talk about women under repressive regimes.
not to mention that now that they've overthrown Saddam, women are looking at the abrogation of their rights under Sharia, rather than secular law.
That's pretty hypocritical for them to talk about women's rights when it was pretty much a given, before the invasion of Iraq, by people who knew the country, that such a scenario was the likely outcome, and if not, civil war would ensue to stop this scenario.
So, according to that logic, they should have supported Saddam, since he was secular... and in fact, they did support him, until they wanted a base in the region for American presence and an oil subsidy to call their own.
|