Human Rights

Venemous Kate (great name) points to the plight of women in Middle Eastern Islamic families and calls on readers to stand up for better treatment of women. Certainly that's a worthy cause. What struck me, though, was something she wrote in the comments section:

Let me warn you now: any flaming attacks against Muslims or Islam in general will be deleted and the IP address of those who instigated them will be banned. This is NOT about religious merits. This is about human rights.

It's obviously very much in fashion to not link the Islamic faith with the actions of some of its adherents, particularly when those adherents to the religion of peace are threatening to kill those who would offend Islam. But the problem is that religion is very totally intertwined with what they do. We cannot separate Islam from the 9/11 attacks, because Atta and his gang carried out those attacks out of religious conviction. Nor can we separate Islam from the stoning of women for "crimes against chastity" when these are subject to that punishment because of Islamic teachings.

That should not indict all of Islam. As a Christian, I well know that there are a lot of very different versions of Christianity out there, all lumped together under the name Christianity. Some of those versions, e.g. the Phelps of the world, are repugnant to me. But you cannot separate their perversion of the Bible from what they do and say. They are acting on their understanding of Biblical teachings.

Kate draws a line between Islam, at least the version of Islam adhered to by those she's talking about, and human rights. Spoken like a true Western person. The West, generally speaking, has a certain set of values and worldview. In our value system, individual rights and freedoms are of great importance. Even with respect to religion, we believe in letting people follow the faith they choose, so even in fairly religious countries, we have a secular outlook. So, the secular West has a value system, including respect for human rights, that transcends religion. The Islam generally practiced in the West reflects this basic cultural value system.

Where we often struggle is in understanding that the rest of the world may not be like us. The world view espoused in the Middle East is very much wrapped up in Islam, a specifically fundamental version of Islam. Therefore the value system is not the transcendent system of the West, but a system totally interwoven with their version of Islam. In many of these countries, it is a capital crime to convert to another faith, because the state is viewed as the enforcer of the faith. In this environment, our Western emphasis on human rights finds no resonance. So we cannot simply appeal for human rights without addressing Islam.

Now women get beaten, abused, and even killed all over the world for many different reasons. When I was in grad school, my best friend was in an abusive marriage and I had to sit with her after a couple of different beatings. Consequently I am fairly sensitive to these kinds of questions. (I even have a hard time watching The Honeymooners. "Pow, right in the kisser," said to great laughter.) But for the abuse and violence Kate is addressing, Islam is at the root.

Later in the comments of her post, Kate explains why she does not want to get into a debate over Islam:

Because you can'’t show me a religon that doesn'’t claim a moral justification to slaughter those who contradict it.

This is obviously true. Stoning adulterous women (and men) was part of, for example, the Mosaic Law underpinning Judaism, and therefore inherited by Christianity. But the versions of those faiths generallpracticeded here, and around the world, do not include enforcement of these laws. Women here don't have to fear a local pastor will call for some woman's death because she committed adultery. But the same woman in Iran would have to fear that. That's the difference, and that's why faith cannot be broken out.