The Obama Administration and religious persecution

As Christians are massacred in Iraq, Obama maintains his shameful silence (The Spectator):

In fact, if you do an internet search for ‘Obama, Middle East, Christians’, you’ll find very thin pickings indeed: mostly articles by his critics pointing out that he’s kept his mouth shut on this subject ever since his Arab Spring empowered the murderers of Christians across the region.

I’m not saying that Christian lives are worth more than Muslim ones. Nor can the (genuinely devout) George W Bush escape his responsibility for the slit throats of Christians some of whom still worship in a version of Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Ditto the ‘Catholic’ Tony Blair.

But the mass culling of Chaldean and Assyrian Christians brings out in Obama a streak of insouciance and laid-back cowardice that is very much his own.

So, over to you, Michelle. If your husband is too busy on the golf course, perhaps you could hold up a placard with a groovy hashtag on it…

Edited to remove inflammatory and offensive language that only served to derail the real topic a hand, and for which I apologize.

You can't take a non-action and try to read something into it like that. I'm sure there's all sorts of bad things that happen all over the world that the president hasn't commented on but that doesn't mean that he approves or even tolerates them. Use a little common sense.

>1 nathanielcampbell:

Obama's been all about making sure that women in the United States can have free access to birth control, but he doesn't seem too concerned that Christians and Shia Muslims are being slaughtered by ISIS militants in Iraq. I guess it's just another day in the life of American political partisanship...

Do you set yourself daily goals for "most offensive thread I can make"?

I know this is difficult to grasp for someone entrenched within the paradigm of religious misogyny and sexism, but "women" aren't some special group to be pitted against any other category at a whim--they are a good half or more of humanity.

Some of those Arab Christians you've been blowing about are women.

Taking your screed at face value--perhaps Obama cares more about the problems of American citizens than those of any other nation. I'm sure you can expect appropriate diplomatic noises directed toward the latter in any case.

If Obama gave equal time to every atrocity that occurs in the world, he wouldn't have much time for governing this country. What time/attention he does give to worldwide atrocities has to be based on the level of the atrocity and what he can realistically do about it.

Since the United States is not a Christian nation, it is of no bearing whether the affected persons are Christian or members of any other religion, or even no religion.

Finally, I would venture to say that Obama is hardly spending 100% of his time on the birth control issue.

>3 LolaWalser:

Well said.

>3 LolaWalser: You are right -- the aside about a "war on women" was inflammatory and ill-considered, and added nothing to the conversation except offense and rancor. I apologize, and I have removed the offending language from the OP.

Excuse me, folks, for bringing up ancient history - but, e.g., who was POTUS a few decades back when the christian militia were slaughtering non-combatant muslim men, women and children in Beirut by the hundreds if not thousands? I don't remember that U.S. President making a point of denouncing that particular evil. Did he? How much time did he devote to that denunciation if he did at all?

Would anyone here really rather have John McCain or Willard Romney as our POTUS now instead of Barack Obama? Why? What would either of those useless self-righteous tools do that would make things better in the world in general than what Obama is presently doing?

To state the obvious President Obama is not President of the world - he is President of the U.S. And there is only so much time in the day to use the "bully pulpit" to promote or denounce the issues of interest of every individual person who happens not to be POTUS.

If someone wishes to spend time denouncing hypocrisy or stupidity or whatever then, fine, I enjoy doing so myself. But try and pick a winner to denounce. If you just make some shit up and denounce it in some superior manner then you just make yourself look stupid and hypocritical. IOW, when you shit, try to make sure the shit doesn't splash back in your own fucking face.

I'm just saying.

>1 nathanielcampbell: Still playing "the Christian is persecuted" card? Do you believe the Obama administration supports the persecution of Christians or is this thread just meant to initiate another one of your scholastic exercises?

>6 nathanielcampbell: All you've done is remove your motive for posting that link. But you aren't fooling anyone by deleting it, we still remember what you wrote.

> 9

IOW we will forgive - but we will never forget?

Well, I for one endorse that. It's the American way.

I missed the original post, what was edited out?

He just wondered why Obama has time to talk about birth control but not persecution of Christians in the Islamic State.

>12 jjwilson61: Thanks. The Secular-Socialist-Islamist meme.

Specifically, he said (paraphrasing) that while Obama is "all about" making sure women get birth control, he can't be bothered to do something about the Christians being killed.

>14 amysisson: Also thanks. A continuing theme.

As someone who does not care for President Obama... there are, as has been observed, literally thousands of such incidents across the globe every year. Which group(s) SHOULD the POTUS speak out about? What would be the criteria for the selection?

And what good would it do? Saying 'Stop that!' is unlikely to have any effect on the guilty parties. Should the United States send in ANOTHER massive military intervention/invasion of Iraq? And for how long?

Ah, I see. I can regret saying something, remove it, and apologize for it -- but that won't stop you from obsessing about it. (Because I'm quite sure none of you have ever said anything that you later regretted, and you just love it when people remind you constantly of whatever things you did that you already apologized for.)

>13 theoria: Seriously? I constantly criticize people who make the foolish claim that the President is a socialist or a closeted Muslim. But I wouldn't want what I actually say and do to get in the way of your fantasies about me. The armchair psychologizing has really been something else around here the last few weeks.

>17 nathanielcampbell: No, we're criticizing you for posting something with an obvious agenda and then pretending that you are totally neutral on the subject.

And if you said what you meant there would be less room for people to misunderstand you (but I'm becoming more and more certain that people *are* understanding you perfectly).

>17 nathanielcampbell: Your edited posts speak for themselves, fortunately. Although the tendency to repetition (post/edit, post/edit, etc.) bears some resemblance to Freud's Fort-Da game.

>17 nathanielcampbell: You just removed the most stupid part--don't forget you left the rest. If you start the thread over with something to the effect of 'this whole thread was not thought through, sorry I brought it up' then you might get somewhere. Only you can do it, Nate.

>18 jjwilson61: If my "agenda" is so "obvious", perhaps you'd care to spell it out? Since you apparently know my motivations better than I do!

(Let me say what my motivations were in posting this: to raise awareness of the failures of the Obama administration to say anything, much less to do anything, about the persecution of religious minorities around the world. The comment in regards to contraception was ill-considered and rash, and I regret it; after reflection, I realized that it did not accurately convey my thoughts on the situation, and thus I deleted it and apologized. I am quite sure, of course, that you have never done something similar--said something that you later realized did not accurately reflect your views and that you regretted--so I imagine it is difficult for you to understand how I, a weak and mere mortal, could make such an egregious error.)

>20 RickHarsch: "If you start the thread over with something to the effect of 'this whole thread was not thought through, sorry I brought it up'"

I refer you to what I added to the OP: "Edited to remove inflammatory and offensive language that only served to derail the real topic a hand, and for which I apologize."

And what I then wrote in >6 nathanielcampbell: "the aside about a "war on women" was inflammatory and ill-considered, and added nothing to the conversation except offense and rancor"

And now in >21 nathanielcampbell: "The comment in regards to contraception was ill-considered and rash, and I regret it; after reflection, I realized that it did not accurately convey my thoughts on the situation, and thus I deleted it and apologized."

How many more times will I have to apologize for a comment that was not well thought through, that I regret, and that I have removed, before y'all will let it go?

>21 nathanielcampbell: Thank you finally stating that your motivation. I can only reiterate that there are many, many bad things going on in the world and persecution of religious minorities is one of them (although I don't know why religious persecution should be considered worst than other types of persecution) and the President can't make a speech about each and every one of them.

>22 nathanielcampbell: Because you retracted your only comment on the article that you posted which left us in the dark as to what you really meant to say about it.

Nor would those speeches do any good. People already convinced that they are absolutely right; that they, and only they, have the Revealed Word of God; aren't going to listen to a secular leader.

>24 jjwilson61: Why must I add my own comments? Can a person not simply provide material as a starting-point for discussion? I didn't realize that OP's must read as personal manifestos, rather than simply serving as prompts for discussion.

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I often try to open up discussions without prejudicing their direction. That's the point of a discussion prompt -- it creates a starting point around which people can create their own ideas. If I opened every class period by telling the students my personal opinions on the topic of the day, I'd never get them to think through things on their own -- they'd just spend the entire class period parroting back my own ideas, since I've prejudiced those as the "right" answers. Moreover, as a humanist, I find that rarely is there such a thing as a "right" answer on the topics I like to teach or discuss about -- the complex yet perennial questions of the humanistic tradition, e.g. what is justice? what is truth? what is wisdom? how do we go about answering these questions? how do we apply those answers to our own lives and to our relationships with family, community, society, country, and the world?

I think what often seems to cause so much rancor against me here on LibraryThing is that I don't find simple answers to those questions, nor am I merely interested in hearing myself repeat simple answers to those questions. But because I often question as much as (or more than) I answer; because I can often see issues from many different angles, and can find much to both appreciate and criticize in each of those angles; because my own "agenda" or "motivations" are rarely obvious even to myself; it seems to engender confusion in a medium where we are supposed to provide answers first, not questions; we are supposed to have our own preferred angle that trumps all others; and we are supposed to have "obvious" agendas.

"I didn't realize that OP's must read as personal manifestos, rather than simply serving as prompts for discussion."

I fear you DO have to clarify that when posting something that's going to be read, rather than opening a class with a spoken statement where the students can get immediate feedback and realize that it's the starting point of a discussion, rathe than a statement that you personally believe in and support.

Perhaps you should end such a post with 'Comments? Reactions? Is the writer making a cogent point?' (Or something similar.) There may still be some rancor and confusion, but it would be clear that you're seeking input and discussion, not posting a statement that you (necessarily) personally support and agree with.

>26 nathanielcampbell: Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I often try to open up discussions without prejudicing their direction.

But you are prejudicing it by your choice of material (and you aren't posting neutral material). If you aren't willing to put your opinions out there we're going to infer your positions by what you post. That's just the way of the internet. It's probably the way of all communication.

Back to the topic at hand, then, do you think the President of the United States should be more worried about "the persecution of religious minorities around the world" or more worried about governing this country. It seems to me that any president would get even more criticism for ignoring problems at home while spending time and energy on something global that he might not be able to fix.

The U.N., on the other hand, should be primarily focused on global issues.

That's not to say I think a president should be insular. But just because you view this as one of the top priorities for our president doesn't mean he does, or that he should, or even that he can. On any given day, there are probably all kinds of things demanding the president's attention, some quite critical, that we never even hear about.

>28 jjwilson61: Plus setting yourself up as the teacher rankles. You aren't my teacher and if I want to have a discussion with you I want it to be as equals.

If Thinkprogress.org had posted a headline that said "George Bush and religious persecution" I'd fault them for trying to be manipulative. I note that the excerpted article leaves out this choice observation:

Perhaps, by the time you read this, Barack Obama – a weekly worshipper at a crazy rabble-rousing church while he was running for office in Chicago – will have said something about this tragedy. He certainly hadn’t said anything at the time of writing

Which gives one a sense of how the author intends the rest of his article to be read. If there is a real question in here about Obama's foreign policy, it's hard to see amidst the vitriol.

>29 amysisson: do you think the President of the United States should be more worried about "the persecution of religious minorities around the world" or more worried about governing this country.

I don't think Obama has been a shining example of leadership in the foreign policy arena, but both his successes and his failures seem rather evenly distributed -- I don't think you can say he's "anti-Christian" or even "anti-religious" in his policies or his motivations. I could wish he'd be more daring--I think he has the intelligence to pull it off-- but I've been wishing that on the domestic front for years. Alas, as a politician he's inclined to take only calculated risks.

>29 amysisson: "It seems to me that any president would get even more criticism for ignoring problems at home while spending time and energy on something global that he might not be able to fix."

But the decimation (I use the term figuratively rather than literally) of the Christian communities in Iraq is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy. Under Sadaam Hussein, they were protected and numbered about 1 million. They have systematically been killed or fled as refugees since the U.S. invasion in 2003; today, there are less than half-a-million Christians left in Iraq, and they are quickly disappearing, too, ahead of the flowing wrath of ISIS.

That is: ISIS this month has emptied Mosul of its Christians for the first time since Christians first started living there some 1800 years ago.

President Obama and his foreign policy team have been furiously working to solve the crises in Ukraine (and the downed Malaysian Airlines plane) and the Israeli invasion of Gaza; but they've been mum about the current crisis in Iraq, which is the worst threat to its integrity and the lives of Shia Muslims and Iraqi Christians since the U.S. invasion.

Why the disparity? Why does the President have the time and energy on Ukraine and Gaza (situations he almost certainly can't fix), but not the problem that the U.S. is most directly responsible for, the disintegration of Iraq?

>26 nathanielcampbell: I guess it just isn't clear enough to you that this was an asinine thread to start with. What you posted is asinine. You want to start a discussion? And you say you don't want to influence anyone? Bullshit. I think this is becoming pathological with you, this apparent need to be an chat martyr. You really need to think this through, you crazy rabble-rouser.

>33 RickHarsch: I suspect this armchair pyschologizing tells us more about you than it does me.

> Do tell, it might enliven the thread, or, better, send it in a sensible direction.

>32 nathanielcampbell:
"President Obama and his foreign policy team have been furiously working to solve the crises in Ukraine (and the downed Malaysian Airlines plane) and the Israeli invasion of Gaza; but they've been mum about the current crisis in Iraq..."

"Why does the President have the time and energy on Ukraine and Gaza (situations he almost certainly can't fix), but not the problem that the U.S. is most directly responsible for, the disintegration of Iraq?" (quoted in case of editing)

Are you merely biased or just stunningly ill-informed (as our "teacher")?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-june-19-statement-on-ir...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/obama-sending-200-american-troops-to-...

You do realize Iraq is a sovereign nation. The USA could, of course, re-invade Iraq. Is that what you're proposing?

> 31 "...I note that the excerpted article leaves out this choice observation:

Perhaps, by the time you read this, Barack Obama – a weekly worshipper at a crazy rabble-rousing church while he was running for office in Chicago..."

- One wonders whether Nat left out this blatant racist quote from the article because he disagreed with it or because he was concerned that doing so would out him as likewise a racist?

>37 JGL53: That's a TOS violation, JLG.

> 38

Well, yes, thank you, I deleted the offending part.

They have systematically been killed or fled as refugees since the U.S. invasion in 2003; today, there are less than half-a-million Christians left in Iraq, and they are quickly disappearing, too, ahead of the flowing wrath of ISIS.

I'm confused. Can someone tell me when Obama was elected again...

FWIW the Sabra and Shatilla massacres carried out by the Lebanese Christian Falange was done in full view and with the tacit support of the Israeli military. It wasn't just christians that were responsible for that. Criticism of the Israeli state has for a long time been not something the United States does--whether or not the party in power is republican or democrat. In the world of bloodthirsty maniacs Ariel Sharon is comparable to Saddam Hussein IMO--yet another respected world figure that the United States felt it needed to support whenever the chips were down. Those massacres also compare favorably to say the Wounded Knee massacre if you want to find a comparable in American history.

Personally I'm an atheist. The violence throughout the centuries between this religious sect or that spewing hocus pocus pie in the sky mumbo jumbo that true believers will kill each other over whether because they don't believe exactly the same shit--or only partially or not at all confirms for me that faith and belief can be a very dangerous thing and that the world is chock full of disturbed minds.

>41 lriley:

Personally I'm an atheist. The violence throughout the centuries between this religious sect or that spewing hocus pocus pie in the sky mumbo jumbo that true believers will kill each other over whether because they don't believe exactly the same shit--or only partially or not at all confirms for me that faith and belief can be a very dangerous thing and that the world is chock full of disturbed minds.

Exactly this.

>39 JGL53: It's still a TOS violation.

I disagree that it is still a TOS violation given that one might fairly wonder along with JGL53 at the omission of such a strongly repulsive and auto-descriptive part of the article.

>41 lriley: "confirms for me that faith and belief can be a very dangerous thing and that the world is chock full of disturbed minds."

Maximilian Kolbe (a Christian) volunteered to die in place of a Jew in a concentration camp -- clearly "a very dangerous thing" produced by a "disturbed mind." Mother Theresa of Calcutta devoted her life to caring for the poor of her country whom nobody else even gave a thought for -- again, clearly "a very dangerous thing" produced by a "disturbed mind." Bach wrote some of the most exquisite music of the western tradition--the B-minor Mass, the St. Matthew Passion--again, "a very dangerous thing" produced by a "disturbed mind."

The great acts of charity, love, and art made by humans spurred by their faith throughout history confirms for me that faith and belief can be a very powerful and benevolent thing and that the world is chock full of loving hearts.

>45 nathanielcampbell: The debasing of religious architecture is one of the more disturbing long-term historical trends (though begun relatively recently) that I am forced to witness daily (from where I sit right now I can turn and see a typical Venetian campanile, same style as in San Marco, and an onion dome that should be, as my favorite style of mine, a daily inspiration, yet is of more recent vintage, made of concrete, without grace). In addition to your Bach, I would add south Indian temples, the extraordinary campanili throughout Europe (because they number in the hundreds of thousands I would guess) along with the great cathedrals, etc.

I am also an atheist, but it would be nonsense to fail to appreciate the extraordinary creations of disturbed minds of all kinds throughout history, and it would be nonsense to judge even apparently religious wars of late as properly about or engendered by religions.

>46 nathanielcampbell: I have accused him of dis-ingenuousness and dishonesty. I hope that you are happy.

Now I'm just confused. Tim posted a parallel thread on the looming destruction of Syrian Christianity (https://www.librarything.com/topic/178122 ), including the line, "Wouldn't it be nice if someone in the administration took notice?" and NOBODY has jumped all over him for his disingenuity or pathological deception.

You should read past the OP.

>46 nathanielcampbell: ... NOBODY has jumped all over him for his disingenuity or pathological deception.

Hey I did! But I was leaving for work at the time so I didn't have time to post much.

Maybe he has us all on ignore?

If it's not all about him, I'm not sure he even notices.

>47 RickHarsch: "I am also an atheist, but it would be nonsense to fail to appreciate the extraordinary creations of disturbed minds of all kinds throughout history, and it would be nonsense to judge even apparently religious wars of late as properly about or engendered by religions."

Every so often, Rick, we come to that happy surprise when you and I agree on something. It doesn't happen as often as we might like, so we should celebrate when it does. (I've found that an appreciation for the artistic accomplishments of people of faith is something that I end up having in common with many atheists -- it has formed the foundation from which they and I have formed friendships that could transcend our disagreements in other areas.)

While I, too, am disgusted by the abuse of religion as an excuse for violence and war, we need to be aware of the fact that most "religious" wars are fought for more complex--or baser--reasons than religion, and that economics, political rivalries (i.e. the fight for power), and tribal rivalries that are about identities informed by much more than just religion, are often part of that complex tangle of motivations. We do a disservice to our view of the world when we over-simplify such conflicts into "religious idiocy," and also run the grave risk of completely misunderstanding them.

On both the individual scale - and, more importantly at the scale of societies - I perceive the bottom line human problem is fanatical dogmatic ideology - or the antithesis of what our U.S. Constitution proposes as right and proper for establishing decent human society and life.

Thus organized religion will always get it in the neck simply because it was the only game in town until less than two centuries ago (if one does not count Attila the Hun, lol).

In today's world straight-up "secular" governments are for the most part fairly decent and democratic. The exceptions are there, of course - N. Korea, Cuba, and now Russia. There may be a few others, I don't know.

But the truly evil secular fanatical dogmatic ideology - Marxism/communism - has been pretty much beaten down now, so yammering on about how, e.g., Stalin starved millions of kulaks/peasants to death is besides the point of what's happening NOW - and what to do about it, if anything.

Religion is still the excuse (given by most) for much of the societal-level evil in the world. Communism ain't the problem now. (And I am STILL unaware of anyone who has ever killed in the name of "Atheism".)

Atheists and secularists in general, in common cause with democratic and ecumenical religionists, constitute the opposition to fanatical dogmatic religious ideologues. (The enemy of my enemy being my friend.)

Fuck all these side issues and pick a side. (pun?)

>54 JGL53: 'In today's world straight-up "secular" governments are for the most part fairly decent and democratic. The exceptions are there, of course - N. Korea, Cuba, and now Russia. There may be a few others, I don't know.'

I would add the US.

> 55

Yes, being a master of understatement, I did use the phrase "for the most part" and the word "fairly" as rather modest qualifiers.

Thus, in doing so, I do not compare any society to some imagined moral perfection but only compare human society to human society. In today's world.

I.e., I focus on the year 2014, i.e., what's happening now.
So, for the record, I am fully aware of and do not condone the long laundry list of atrocities inflected on masses of innocent people over U.S. history. Disgusting stuff, surely.

So I fully understand it is all a mixed bag. Surely I can and do get mixed up in generalities and improper reductionism as much as the next (less intelligent) person. lol.

But I hope others will properly receive the thrust of my epistolary effects in the referenced post. Or something like that.

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I often try to open up discussions without prejudicing their direction.

This is the most hilarious lie I've read this week.

Mother Theresa of Calcutta devoted her life to caring for the poor of her country whom nobody else even gave a thought for -- again, clearly "a very dangerous thing" produced by a "disturbed mind."

Citing a horrible person like Mother Theresa as "devoted to caring for the poor" illustrates the complete lack of merit to your argument. She was a vile, vicious person more interested in allowing people to suffer than alleviating suffering.

"Advocating for women’s rights has never been safe work in Iraq but as the war empowers radical religious groups, it’s growing more dangerous. In an earlier conversation, Hanaa Edwar, who heads the Iraqi Al-Amal Association, another NGO in Baghdad that works on women’s rights issues, warned about the rise of the militias’ power. “The militias try to replace the rule of the law,” she said. “The armed groups are trying to replace the security forces. This is a horrible thing for the country.”" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/22/an-iraqi-group-helping-women-an...

>59 theoria: Thank you for posting that article -- it is important to see that ISIS's violence extends to all manner of victims.

But their extremism is not going unopposed by the good people of Iraq:

The Muslim who gave up his life for Mosul's Christians (Vatican Insider / LaStampa):

He refused to keep silent about the violence agaist Mosul’s Christians who are forced to choose between converting to the Muslim faith, paying the jizyah (the Islamic tax for non-Muslims) or fleeing. Professor Mahmoud Al ‘Asali, a law professor who lectures on pedagogy at the University of Mosul, had the courage to make a stand against this brutal duress which he believes go against the Muslim commandments. But he paid for this gesture with his life: he was killed by ISIS militants in Mosul yesterday.

"Everybody gets dead." -- John Wayne as the eponymous lead in "Hondo"...