Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 108 Editor's Choice: 20
-
response to the scum II
[Read the article: The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Scum,
HI! Thanks for your comments. Just a couple of points in response.
First, it does seem to me that much of what you are saying depends on Iran's leadership being completely irrational. You point out that countries' leaders have done irrational things before and you say that MAD only worked once. But I question the validity of these points. The threat of nuclear conflict is widely understood in the international community as being in a class by itself and is an entirely modern phenomenon. There simply is no evidence that the Iranian leadership is not fully aware of the possible consequences of nuclear war. Moreover, remember that this is a country that suspended its nuclear programs after the Islamists took power because Ayatollah Khomeini declared nuclear weapons to be "un-Islamic".Indeed, this is a country that refused to use chemical weapons against Iraq, after its own people had been gassed, because it regarded such weapons as "un-Islamic". So, in truth, Iran can actually make a credible case that it is capable of acting with far more restraint and maturity than any Western nation, facing a similar provocation.
Again, for the idea that Iran is seriously considering a first strike to work, the Iranian leadership would either have to be completely insane - which is clearly not the case - or, possibly, responding to an attack upon it. This is the other plausible scenario - if Iran were attacked, it might use nukes (if it had them). But it is highly unlikely it would be the aggressor. Indeed, Iran has far more to fear from Israel and the US than the reverse. After all, it is the Israelis and Americans who have nuclear weapons and who are clearly threatening to use them.
You make the point about Iran supporting Hezbollah - but remember that Israel is widely regarded in the Third World as a colonial state that has ejected and suppressed its indigenous inhabitants. Hezbollah, by contrast, is widely regarded as a justifiable and effective - and perhaps necessary - resistance. Another way to look at it is that Iran uses Hezbollah to assert influence, much as the US asserted influence by supporting the contras in Nicaragua, or the Israelis backed Lebanese Christian militias to act as their proxies in Lebanon. The real complaint here may be that Iran is using American tactics against the US and its ally.
The question of what Ahmadinejad said: it's pretty clear that he was not advocating genocide against the Jews. Remember that he later went on to compare Israel's disappearance to the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The Iranians are hoping for the ideological and political collapse of Israel, not the death of its people. Indeed, Iran's official position is that, basically, all the people of Israel/Palestine - all Jews and all of the Palestinians, within and without the country - should be allowed to vote on the nature of the government and state. This position has the virtue of being just, even if it is politically impossible.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
Islam the most primitive Abrahamic faith?
[Read the article: I've had three miscarriages and my husband won't wear a yarmulke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Cary (and others)
I think this thread is fascinating, and I don't think I have much to add. The points raised by various respondents have me going back and forth - should the husband just show respect (as most of us would) and wear the yarmulke, or would wearing something that he does not believe in actually be a sign of disrepect? Is he being a jerk by refusing to compromise on something that, by definition, should not matter to him, or is he taking a principled stand to represent his beliefs in a world that is hostile to atheism? And are these issues all smokescreens for much deeper problems in the marriage?(I'll say yes to this last one).
I'm a bit more sympathetic to the LW and her apparent contradiction between not really caring about god, but wanting her husband to participate in religious services. Obviously, for her, going to synagogue is a social exercise, one of building and maintaining community, and her husband undermines this by drawing attention to himself for not being part of the community. The LW's determination to raise the (hoped-for) child as Jewish, presumably, has more to do about making the child part of the tribe, rather than just indoctrinating the child into a belief in a certain kind of god. This strikes me as another fundamental issue that the LW and her husband will need to deal with. She is conflating religion and community, while he seems to view belief in God as separate from community.
All this being said, I want to respond to an earlier respondent's assertion that Islam is the most "primitive" of the Abrahamic faiths. I would have to disagree. I'm reading a book on the basic principles of Islam right now, and I've been deeply impressed with how advanced and humane the faith actually is. Indeed, it is not hard to understand why it is gaining so many adherents in many parts of the world. I suspect that when people actually take the time to discover what Islam is actually about, it makes a great deal of sense and has a real appeal. Indeed, I've been struck by how much it mirrors some of the Eastern religions.
I think that there is a real distinction in what Islam, in its purest form, may say and how it is practiced in many parts of the world, but that is a different discussion.
I am not advocating for Islam here - I, myself, am avowedly non-religious (having gone through my atheist stage) - I believe in God, but I reject organized religion. Quite frankly, OR makes little sense to me. It's trying to fit God in a bottle. Still, I try to respect the fact that many people need organized religion to help in their relationship with God.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine