And our government says these are the good guys ...

Reader Alert: While this post will look like it is about Islam, it really isn't.

In the April 26th edition of The Economist is the story about human rights abuses against women in Saudi Arabia, which can be found at http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11090113.

As a result of that country's involvement in and support for US military action in the Gulf region, most Americans know some things about women's rights in Saudi Arabia. I remember, and I suspect most others do also, reading about the concerns expressed by the Saudi government over female soldiers driving military vehicles since women are not allowed to drive in the Kingdom.

But, the inability to drive is among the least of the problems for Saudi women. According to the Human Rights Watch, the practise of having a male guardian with legal control over the female leads to most abuses. For example, quoting the piece, "millions of Saudi women [ ] are unable by law to study, work, travel, marry, testify in court, legalise a contract or undergo medical treatment without the assent of a close male relative,be he a father, husband or, less commonly, a grandfather, brother or son." That means, for example, if a husband is guilty of physical abuse against a wife, she cannot file a complaint with the police or go to court to seek redress unless he accompanies her.

While this practice is ostensibly based on the Qur'an, and thus would be part of Islam, it is actually based on a particular interpretation, that of the Wahhabis, of a Qur'anic verse. In actuality, the women in Saudi Arabia are subject to much more stringent regulations than their counterparts in other Muslim countries. Is this something our government should be tolerating?

The White House announced a trip by the President and First Lady to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in mid-May. The President has already "leaked" the news that he is authorizing a major weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and that he will ask for help from the Saudis in lowering oil prices. The conclusion of the official WH press release announcing this trip reads, "In his meetings with regional leaders, the President will reaffirm efforts toward peace and prosperity and our close work with regional allies to combat terrorism and promote freedom." Not a word about human rights abuses in any of the countries; not a word about ignoring UN resolutions; not a word about any problems in any of these countries.

Granted, there may be behind the scenes talks on a number of human rights issues, but there is no public acknowledgement of any such. And, the First Lady has shown that she is willing to speak up on issues that concern her. Earlier this week, Mrs. Bush scolded the leaders of Burma (Myanmar) and chided them for their flawed constitutional process and their failures in guaranteeing freedoms for all citizens.

Maybe, it is because these are the "good guys" - the ones who are on our side and have oil reserves - and, thus, they do not deserve reminders of their failings.

National Day of Prayer, Redux

I addressed this issue in my post on May 2, but I have since come across some other perspectives that I felt important to mention.

Steven Waldman, founder of the BeliefNet site and author of Founding Faith, which looks like a book I will end up buying and reading, commented on how he feels some of the "founding fathers" would view the National Day of Prayer. His comments can be found here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/05/-richard-land-recalls-the.html. Waldman also calls attention to the blog written by Richard Land, staunch Southern Baptist, on the topic. Land's comments can be found here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/05/a-national-day-of-prayer.html?bt=polmashup.

Just in case you choose not to read all of what Waldman wrote, here is an excerpt.

The Founders were divided on this [that is, a governmental proclamation calling for a national day of prayer]. Washington and Adams both issued prayer proclamations that went considerably farther than what Reagan (and Harry Truman) had done.

But Jefferson and Madison stopped the practice. Jefferson seemed worried about prayer proclamations violating the First Amendment. Madison did, too, but added another argument: it wasn't good for religion. By offering prayer in a political context (including asking for prayers related to specific policy goals) Madison said prayer proclamations had politicized a solemn act "to the scandal of religion as well as the increase of party animosities."

In describing why he resisted prayer proclamations, Madison said, "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion," he wrote. If Americans want to band together to pray, he said, they should do so but to bring about such prayer or gathering through the political process was "doubly wrong." Madison reported that he had received many private letters urging him to follow the pattern of Adams and Washington, prompting him to fear that Americans "have lost sight of the quality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution.”

In the current world of sound bites, swift-boating, and political pundits, I very much doubt that Mr. Madison could be successful in politics. The only thing people would hear about his views would be the loud clamor of the charges that Madison opposes prayer. I fear that no one would actually read what he wrote and think about why he wrote it.

It seems that religion is another one of those topics that our nation does not really want to think about and discuss. Wouldn't it be miraculous if we could have a discussion across our nation of how religion informs the political process, of how politics affects religious beliefs, of how different people with different religious understandings view issues, and of how people from different families of world religions can be part of one community?

A Different Perspective on Easter

Most people are aware that the Western and Eastern Christian churches do not follow the same calendar for detrermining the date to observe Easter. For the Western church, Easter this year was March 23; Eastern Orthodox churches did not celebrate Easter until April 27.

The two branches of Christendom also have different perspectives on the meaning of Easter. We, in the Western world, focus on the empty tomb. Western Christian churches ring with such hymns as Up From the Grave He Arose on Easter Sunday. Sermons are built around the reality of the angels' testimony, "He is not here. He has risen from the grave as He said."

For an understanding of Easter from the Orthodox tradition, consider this statement from His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,

When Orthodox Christians recall the Resurrection, they are not primarily concerned intellectually with how that miracle actually took place. In fact, they think less of an empty grave and more of an open tomb, which remains an open invitation to those who believe. The miracle of Resurrection calls for an openness to confess the reality of the darkness within us and around us, admitting our role and responsibility in refusing to eradicate the suffering in our world. Then, when we stand honestly before the reality of our evil – in earnest recognition and prayerful confession of the hurt we inflict upon our neighbor within society and within the global community, and the abuse with we treat the earth’s resources – at that very moment of realization are we also able to perceive the hope and light of the Resurrection. Only then are we able to apprehend the relationship between the Resurrection and the presence of war, racism, global warming and terrorism in our world. For then, we shall also be able to discern the light of the Resurrection in our hearts and in our world.
This is why for forty days after the bright night of that Easter vigil, Orthodox Christians will continue to greet one another with the words: “Christ is Risen! Truly, He is Risen!”

Frankly, the Eastern Orthodox perspective with its acknowledgement of human evil and how we contribute to the problems of the world is much more challenging to us. From the Western perspective, Easter is a powerful story of God's power, but has little to do with us. Now, incorporating the perspective of our sisters and brothers of the Eastern church means we can no longer think only of the power of God in evidence at the resurrection. We must consider how we should change and what we should do in order to make our world better.

May the Easter profession become a call to action for us. Christ is Risen!