Muslim fury can be traced to the ever increasing intervention by
Washington in Muslim countries.
---
it's way to obvious for American warmongers to see.
On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Weekend Edition September 21-23, 2012The InterventionistsSo, Really, Why Do They Hate Us?by PAUL ATWOOD
> Recent attacks on American embassies and consulates in numerous Muslim countries are claimed to be irrational and undue reactions to a film portraying the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a degraded manner. The film is intentionally sacrilegious and incendiary toward Islamic beliefs and seems intended to add fuel to the rage of a Muslim world already incensed at the U.S. for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for destructive American drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia and multiple other nations, and one-sided support for Israel accompanied by platitudes for Palestinians. Thus, the roots of widespread anti-Americanism are much deeper than can be explained merely by recent events. Instead, Muslim fury can be traced to the ever increasing intervention by Washington in Muslim countries since the end of World War II. Prior to that, the U.S. was considered a non-interventionist, even anti-imperialist, friend in much of the region. Yet, even before the war ended President Roosevelt made a secret deal with the Saudi king to provide American protection (and ultimately arms as well, used primarily to suppress his own population) to the Saudis in return for unobstructed American corporate access to the recently discovered Saudi oilfields.
> Few today remember American policies during the Iranian crisis of 1946, when the U.S. obliquely threatened to force Soviet Troops out of Iran. American, British and Soviet troops occupied Iran in 1941 because it had tilted toward the Nazis under the father of the later American client, Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Soviets occupied the oil fields of northern Iran with Washington's approval during the war to prevent them from falling into Nazi hands. The Soviets were supposed to withdraw in March of that year but refused until a deal could be arranged whereby the USSR could purchase Iranian oil in order to begin rebuilding its war-ravaged society. Initially the Truman Administration encouraged the Iranian government to accept the deal. Then when the Red Army did withdraw also encouraged the Iranians to renege on the arrangement. It is worth noting that the Red Army did not then re-occupy the territory, thereby putting the lie to the claim made immediately after WWII that the Soviets were bent on world domination. There was nothing, not even employing atomic weapons, that the U.S. could have done to stop the Red Army had it chosen to reoccupy Iran's oilfields since that would have destroyed the very resources that were being contested. The Soviets were only one of the principal obstacles to American post-war plans- though they were trumpeted as the prime mover. Equally important was nationalism, especially the sort of national independence craved by countries possessing vital resources that the U.S. coveted. Few also realize that until WWII the U.S. was the prime exporter of petroleum. By war's end the U.S. had used so much of its domestic oil, and its hydrocarbon-based economy had grown so exponentially, that from that point on the U.S. was impelled to begin importing oil.
> Many do remember the overthrow of the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeqh in 1953. Exceeding its legal mandate to gather intelligence, the newly minted Central Intelligence Agency, initiated its first successful overthrow of a constitutional and elected government because that government decided that Iranian oil belonged to the Iranians and not to the British oil company that would eventually become British Petroleum. The American scheme was calculated to ensure that American companies would thereafter dominate Iranian oil production and get rid of most British competition in Iran as well. The Shah and his brutal government was then installed to act as Washington's gendarme in the region. To ensure his rule the U.S. military and CIA then trained his dreaded secret police in the fine arts of torture and terror.
> Meanwhile the CIA was active in similar efforts across the planet to undermine any form of nationalism, socialism, or communism that would interfere with the overarching American agenda, which was not the promotion of "democracy" but the installation of friendly clients into positions of power in countries considered strategic for their resources or geographic position. Space does not allow a complete catalog but of importance to current events is certainly the role the "Company" played in the overthrow of the British client king of Iraq in 1958, an intrigue in which Saddam Hussein played a role and that led eventually to his dictatorship, one with which Washington was happy to cooperate after the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979. The famous film of Donald Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddam's hand perfectly illustrates the lower depths to which Washington has too often stooped to achieve its ends. The U.S. provided highly technical intelligence to Iraq against Iran, aiding the mass slaughter that ensued, and when he used poison gas made from chemicals provided by American corporations against Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran, Washington prevented sanctions against his regime. At that point he was assisting the American agenda to weaken Iranian fundamentalism so his crimes could be whitewashed. However, his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 became the perfect rationale to inject what evolved into a permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf.
> At the time of 9-11 Michael Scheur was the CIA's foremost expert on Al Qaeda. His writings emphasize that Americans had to take seriously the reasons spelled out by Osama Bin Laden for Al Qaeda's antagonism toward the U.S. One of those principal motivations was the American military presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden said clearly that the presence of "infidel" troops on sacred Islamic soil was a desecration. Thereafter, all American forces were to be driven from all Islamic lands. The widespread perception in the Muslim world that Americans had defiled the holiest sites of Islam and were exploiting Muslim resources while propping up corrupt dictatorial apostates like the rulers of the Arab Gulf states contributed to the relative ease with which al Qaeda could recruit new Jihadis to its cause.
> Scheur also noted that bin Laden said that the attacks on 9-11 were intended to promote further intervention by Washington in the region and thus promote more of the anti-Americanism that he hoped would fuel his movement. To a great extent American actions have worked almost precisely to Bin Laden's plan and the current explosion of violence around the world toward the U.S. is a direct outgrowth of the increasing resentment and hatred long stored in memory across the Middle East. Washington is reaping the violent whirlwind sowed by itself.
> The so-called "Arab Spring" represented an upwelling of long-simmering opposition to numerous dictatorships in the region, most of them propped up by Washington with a few exceptions that rankled like Libya and Syria. Though President Obama and Hillary Clinton mouthed piously about popular democracy and the "will of the people," such didn't help the hapless residents of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, where instantaneous and brutal repression followed, with mere sighs from Washington. Remember that at first, President Obama supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt until the intensity of the demonstrations in Cairo forced the U.S to abandon him. But not before the Egyptian military high command stepped up to reassure the State Department that it would take his place. Then they threw Mubarak "under the bus." Nevertheless, the sheer pressure of popular demand for a voice necessitated an election. Since the Egyptian Army is financed and armed by Washington, and Egypt receives the second largest sum of foreign aid (after Israel) widespread knowledge that the Egyptian Army is a creature of the U.S. led to victory in the elections by the despised Muslim Brotherhood. After the election the Egyptian courts sought to prevent the seating of this Parliament dominated by the Brotherhood and with representation by the even more vehement Salafists, but the newly seated president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, does indeed represent the Brotherhood. One reason the Army allowed the elections was because its leadership feared that rank and file troops would not support repression in the face of such an uprising from the depths of their own social origins. Morsi is being very careful now. It remains to be seen how the new configuration of power, of Islamists vs. the Army, will evolve.
> The killing of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya prompted an embittered Secretary Clinton to ask how those who owed their "liberation" to the U.S. could be so ungrateful to their emancipators, thereby confirming how little she understands of the circumstances fostering the Libyan uprising, nor those her government has wrought, or the degree to which the planned outcome of U.S. intervention islikely to fail utterly. The standard interpretation of what transpired in Libya is that the U.S. and its European allies in NATO conducted a humanitarian intervention to rid Libya of another brutal dictator. It is true that Muammar Qaddaffi ruled autocratically but in this he was supported by a substantial majority at least in western Libya, where traditional tribes were loyal.
> Libya came into existence as an independent state only in 1951. Before that it had been an Italian colony, or rather three separate colonies cobbled together and given the name the ancient Romans called most of North Africa. In its efforts to subdue these colonies Italy became the very first European empire to use the airplane in primitive bombing runs on resisting tribes. In this they were soon followed by the French in Syria and Lebanon, and by the British in Iraq and Afghanistan, facts still well remembered in the region. Therefore, like so many nations that acquired independence after World War II, Libya was an artificial construct, merging mutually suspicious or hostile ethnic groups and tribes into a configuration designed by former colonial masters to serve their interests. When Qaddaffi overthrew the corrupt king of Libya in 1969, who made sweetheart deals with western oil companies, and hoarded revenues from Libya's newly discovered oil, he took over a country already riven with tribal animosities. One of his difficulties was that much of Libya's oil was in the east, where tribes different from his own loyalists dwelled. He suppressed opposition brutally.
> Another problem which Quaddaffi dealt with successfully and which brought him the unending hostility of the west and led to a deadly cat and mouse game that played out over forty years- were those western oil companies that dominated the industry and reaped the greatest share of profits. Qaddaffi immediately nationalized oil but allowed some companies to remain. However, he imposed significantly higher taxes and royalties on those, like the American company Occidental, resulting in a considerable increase in revenues available to him but he used these to raise the standard of living substantially, mainly for his loyalists, but also to an extent for the entire population. Whether his example stimulated what followed is unclear but the facts are that numerous other former oil producing colonies of the western powers subsequently initiated their own nationalizations, thereby upsetting longstanding and profitable western arrangements. He also refused to peg the Libyan currency, the dinar, to the International Monetary Fund, and refused to submit to the World Bank and International Bank for Settlements. Qaddaffi also styled himself the champion of pan-Arabism, the movement to unify the entire Arab world and funded many nationalist movements hostile to the west.
> During all this time the CIA was actively involved with Qaddaffi's opponents to find a way to overthrow him. This lethal contest led to mutual terrorism (though most American media and scholarly accounts omit the U.S. actions) and culminating in the atrocity of Lockerbie, followed by the bombing of Libya, including Qaddaffi's house where his adoptive three year old daughter was killed. Qaddaffi then intensified efforts to acquire chemical weapons, and even undertook a nuclear program. However sanctions led him to submit the Lockerbie suspects for trial in the UK, and later to give up these WMD programs. At that point western media reports declared that Qaddaffi had "normalized'" affairs with the west.
> Whatever he imagined about his new relations with former enemies, the CIA had other ideas. So when the "Arab Spring" erupted in Tunisia and soon spread across the entire region, many Libyans followed suit and Libya descended into the civil war that Washington and NATO then leapt upon in order to accomplish finally what the western governments and energy corporations had desired all along- the overthrow of Qaddaffi and his replacement with an installed government essentially of handpicked clients who would restore Libyan resources to western corporate domination. In the midst of fighting the private global intelligence company STRATFOR published and circulated a detailed map showing most of Libya's oil was located in the eastern area of Benghazi. It was also well known that the oil Libya produced was of a type that is refined easily into the gasoline required in European automobiles. South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham waxed feverishly over the lure of profits, braying "Let's get in on the ground. There's a lot of money to be made in Libya. Lots of oil to be produced. Let's get on the ground and help the Libyan people establish a democracy and a functioning economy based on free market principles." Even before the "revolution" had succeeded and a new government was installed, the rebel group claiming authority announced the dissolution of Qaddaffi's national bank and replaced it with a new central bank tied to international institutions, which, of course, are dominated by the western financial establishment.
> As media images showed clearly, Qaddaffi still had enormous support. The "rebels" included eastern tribal members long hostile to rule from western Libya, but also ethnic minorities like the Berbers, but also Libyan members of al Qaeda as well as al Qaeda jihadists from around the Arab and Muslim world. Included in the toxic mix were CIA operatives and covert American Special Forces. Without western arms supplied to Qaddaffi's opponents, and especially the U.S. led bombing campaign it is likely Qaddaffi would have hung on. The result we see today, however, was utterly predictable.
> The so-called government installed in Tripoli, in the west of Libya, has no control over anything, especially in eastern Benghazi. In May the interim prime minister's offices were attacked with four aides killed. In June a bomb exploded in the same consulate building where Ambassador Stevens was killed. The British ambassador narrowly escaped assassination last spring. The January ransacking of the National Transition Council offices provides evidence that factions in Benghazi want independence, not the unified state. What more would it have taken for Washington to realize that its best laid plans were going awry? Writing in the Guardian, Benjamin Barber notes that at minimum 100,000 militants of one faction or another, all armed with American and NATO weapons (including the rocket-propelled-grenade launchers used against the American consulate) continue to wage war or jihad upon each other, and that al Qaeda is as much a home grown faction as any other. Indeed, al Qaeda raised its flag over the Benghazi courthouse the day after Qaddaffi was killed.
> On March 2, 2007 Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces, and 2004 Democratic contender for the presidency, appeared on Amy Goodman's televised program Democracy Now. In the interview he revealed that shortly before the invasion of Iraq a highly placed Pentagon officer divulged a secret plan to him to overthrow the governments of seven countries-Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Speaking in San Francisco the following October Clark repeated this and added commentary about a conversation he had in 1992 with Paul Wolfowitz, a prime architect of George W. Bush's policies, who at the time was number three in the Defense department. Quoting Wolfowitz Clark said: "One thing we learned [in the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region- in the Middle East- and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet regimes Syria, Iran, Iraq- before the next superpower comes along to stop us."
> The Neo-Conservatives were supposed to have been swept from power by the new Obama Administration, and yet the withdrawal (that is not really a withdrawal) from Iraq was negotiated by Bush, and the "surge" in Afghanistan ordered by Obama out neo-conned the neo-cons, just as the "liberation" of Libya certainly followed their template if not their foolish expectations. Syria awaits our humanitarian ministrations. But that may prove the most disastrous escapade of all.
> Paul Atwood is Interim Director of the William Joiner Center for the Study of War and Social Consequences, and faculty in the American Studies Department, University of Massachusetts-Boston, and member of the Smedley Butler Brigade, the Boston chapter of Veterans for Peace. He is the author of War and Empire: the American Way of Life.http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/21/so-really-why-do-they-hate-us/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Judaic Law in America
Last week, the New York City Board of Health voted unanimously to
require
written parental consent for a circumcision practice known as "direct
oral
suction" that segments of the Orthodox Jewish world believe is
required
under Jewish law. Prominent Orthodox Jewish organizations are up in
arms,
arguing that this is the first step toward greater government
regulation of
religious practices—a dangerous slippery slope that they fear could
end in a
total ban on circumcision. Some defenders of the practice, known as
mezizah
b'peh, say they will openly defy the new requirement to provide
parents with
information about the practice's health risks.
The ultra-Orthodox umbrella group Agudath Israel of America, known
simply as
the Agudah, has even gone so far as to shop for pro bono counsel to
bring a
lawsuit challenging the law. Ironically, by staking this position
Adugah has
positioned itself on the same side of the informed-consent issue as
Planned
Parenthood, which has sued a number of states challenging laws that
require
doctors to obtain written consent about the increased risk of suicide
for
women who have abortions.
AAs an Orthodox Jew and a constitutional litigator with a history of
successful suits against the city, I feel compelled to explain why the
lawsuit is doomed to fail. What's more, history shows that it will
probably
backfire. The more groups like Agudah oppose this law, the greater the
likelihood for more government regulation of religious rituals in the
future.
***/p>
According to an email from Agudah's general counsel, the group
believes that
written parental consent is unconstitutional on the grounds that it
interferes with "both freedom of religion and freedom of speech." The
freedom of religion claim can be disposed of easily: The regulation
does
not, in any way, limit religious practice. A circumcision provider—and
to be
clear, the regulation applies across the board to anyone performing a
circumcision, religious or secular, doctor or mohel—can continue to
perform
direct oral suction as he did the day before the regulation was
passed.
The law only requires that, prior to the circumcision, the parent or
legal
guardian must give written informed consent "in a form approved or
provided
by the Department," which must include notice that "direct oral
suction
exposes the infant to the risk of transmission of herpes simplex virus
infection and other infectious diseases." The issue, such as it is, is
the
form—and here's why:
The First Amendment generally forbids "compelled speech"—that is, laws
that
require a person to speak against their will and in opposition to
their
sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. In trying to
prove
that the consent form does this, Agudah's case will undoubtedly focus
on
such seminal cases as Wooley v. Maynard, a 1977 Supreme Court case
invalidating a law requiring residents of New Hampshire to display the
state
motto, "Live Free or Die," on license plates because residents who
were
Jehovah's Witnesses did not agree with that as a life philosophy. The
group
will also probably cite West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
a 1943
Supreme Court case that ruled that students who were Jehovah's
Witnesses
could not be compelled to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of
Allegiance in contravention of their religious beliefs.
Maynard and Barnette are important First Amendment cases. But they
deal with
laws that force a religious person to express an opinion or philosophy
that
is contrary to his religious beliefs. They say nothing about providing
factual information regarding potential risks to the recipient of a
medical
procedure. That body of case law—less well-known, but much more on
point
(and, I suspect, missing from Agudah's legal research)—makes clear
that the
government has broad authority to force those who perform medical
procedures
to provide such information, on the basis of the government's
fundamental
responsibility to protect public safety and health.
Two federal circuit court of appeals decisions from this past year,
Planned
Parenthood v. Rounds and Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, make this
point
in the context of a medical procedure even more charged than
circumcision:
abortion. These decisions come out of a recent trend in the state
courts to
require doctors to provide information to pregnant women about the
health
risks of an abortion, and in particular compel them to disclose
studies
showing a higher risk of suicide in women who have abortions. Planned
Parenthood has vigorously challenged these informed-consent mandates
in a
number of jurisdictions on First Amendment grounds on behalf of
doctors who
argue that the state cannot compel them to speak to patients about
such
risks. Sound familiar?
Employing the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in its plurality
opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), both recent federal
circuit
court decisions uphold the challenged legislation on the grounds that
if the
information the state requires to be made available is "truthful and
not
misleading," and it is relevant to an informed decision as to whether
to
have the procedure done, the state can require that it be provided—
whether
regarding abortion or "any [other] medical procedure."
These are not the only such decisions. Courts have upheld informed-
consent
laws against "compelled speech" claims in the context of state laws
requiring disclosure of HIV status prior to intercourse, rejected
"compelled
speech" defenses in tort where communicable genital herpes was not
disclosed, and have come out in favor of the state in a number of
other
abortion-related cases. As the court said in the HIV case, the state
has an
"overriding, legitimate and compelling interest in preserving the life
of
its citizens," which gives it the authority to forbid "remaining
silent and
knowingly exposing others to an incurable disease."
New York's new regulations regarding direct oral suction fall squarely
within this line of cases. There is no question that the risk to an
8-day-old baby of contracting a potentially fatal herpes infection
from
direct oral suction is "relevant" to a parent's decision whether to
have the
circumcision performed in that manner. As long as the information
provided
is "truthful and not misleading," the city is in the clear.
The notice published with the proposed law from the Board of Health
suggests
that it is already well aware of the legal basis for the regulation.
It says
that between 2004 and 2011, it learned of 11 cases of "laboratory-
confirmed
herpes simplex virus infection in male infants following circumcisions
that
were likely to have been associated with direct oral suction." Two of
these
infants died, at least two others suffered brain damage, and, most
important, "[t]he parents of some of these infants have said that they
did
not know before their child's circumcision that direct oral suction
would be
performed." In addition, it says that since 2004, the Department of
Health
"has received multiple complaints from parents whose children may not
have
been infected who were also not aware that direct oral suction was
going to
be performed as part of their sons' circumcisions." The informed-
consent law
responds directly to these legitimate concerns. Under no fair reading
of the
law has the Board of Health overstepped its powers under the First
Amendment.
***
So, what of Agudah's argument that this law is only the first step
toward
full government regulation of circumcision, or even, in the fashion of
the
recent ruling of a German court, banning the ritual? One thing's for
sure:
If the Orthodox community continues to vehemently oppose this modest
consent
law it will encourage and likely lead to greater regulation of
circumcision
in the future. This is widely understood in the context of self-
regulated
industries. (Think baseball and steroids.) If a group or industry
agrees to
moderate self-policing and 30,000-foot government oversight, the
government
hangs back. But if they insist on complete autonomy, creating the
impression
that the industry thinks it is above the law, the government
inevitably
steps in and imposes more stringent regulation.
The same is true of religious groups. Just look at Mormons and
polygamy.
President Lincoln signed into law a ban on polygamy in 1862, but he
signaled
that he would not enforce the law for a time in deference to Mormons'
religious beliefs, hoping that they would put an end to the practice
without
government interference. But some prominent Mormons refused, insisting
vociferously that their religious practices trumped the law. Some even
rose
up in civil disobedience.
It didn't end well for them. In the years following Lincoln's ban, the
federal government stepped in to impose its authority and control by
seizing
church property and imposing criminal sanctions on polygamists. The
church
was nearly driven into the ground by the time it abandoned the
doctrine of
multiple wives in 1890.
Some in the ultra-Orthodox community have threatened to take a
similarly
hard line with the informed-consent law. Unfortunately, it's only the
latest
in a series of incidents in which the impression given by some in the
community is that they think they are above secular law. It's an
attitude
that fails to acknowledge and appreciate the unique-in-history
openness of
American society to minority religions, and especially to Jews.
Moreover, vehement opposition to this modest regulation will turn
popular
opinion against religious Jews by creating the impression that we put
tradition over the safety of babies, and that ritual matters to us
more than
life. And it will reinforce the mistaken impression in wider American
society that opposition to direct oral suction and opposition to
circumcision are one and the same, which they are not. England has had
some
modest form of regulation of religious circumcisions for a very long
time,
with no adverse consequences. Here in America, the government
regulates
marriage, even between religious individuals. I've never heard an
Orthodox
Jew complain about that.
If Agudah's lawsuit goes forward, it will very likely make bad law for
those
who care deeply about the rights of religious minorities and the value
of
religious autonomy—as did the cases that came out of Mormons'
rejection of
the regulation of marriage practices. The threatened circumcision case
will
make clear that the government has the authority to regulate and
restrict
religious practices when there is a risk to health and safety, giving
greater credence and legal authority for those who would go further
than a
mere informed-consent law and forbid certain religious practices
altogether—perhaps direct oral suction, or circumcision itself.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
require
written parental consent for a circumcision practice known as "direct
oral
suction" that segments of the Orthodox Jewish world believe is
required
under Jewish law. Prominent Orthodox Jewish organizations are up in
arms,
arguing that this is the first step toward greater government
regulation of
religious practices—a dangerous slippery slope that they fear could
end in a
total ban on circumcision. Some defenders of the practice, known as
mezizah
b'peh, say they will openly defy the new requirement to provide
parents with
information about the practice's health risks.
The ultra-Orthodox umbrella group Agudath Israel of America, known
simply as
the Agudah, has even gone so far as to shop for pro bono counsel to
bring a
lawsuit challenging the law. Ironically, by staking this position
Adugah has
positioned itself on the same side of the informed-consent issue as
Planned
Parenthood, which has sued a number of states challenging laws that
require
doctors to obtain written consent about the increased risk of suicide
for
women who have abortions.
AAs an Orthodox Jew and a constitutional litigator with a history of
successful suits against the city, I feel compelled to explain why the
lawsuit is doomed to fail. What's more, history shows that it will
probably
backfire. The more groups like Agudah oppose this law, the greater the
likelihood for more government regulation of religious rituals in the
future.
***/p>
According to an email from Agudah's general counsel, the group
believes that
written parental consent is unconstitutional on the grounds that it
interferes with "both freedom of religion and freedom of speech." The
freedom of religion claim can be disposed of easily: The regulation
does
not, in any way, limit religious practice. A circumcision provider—and
to be
clear, the regulation applies across the board to anyone performing a
circumcision, religious or secular, doctor or mohel—can continue to
perform
direct oral suction as he did the day before the regulation was
passed.
The law only requires that, prior to the circumcision, the parent or
legal
guardian must give written informed consent "in a form approved or
provided
by the Department," which must include notice that "direct oral
suction
exposes the infant to the risk of transmission of herpes simplex virus
infection and other infectious diseases." The issue, such as it is, is
the
form—and here's why:
The First Amendment generally forbids "compelled speech"—that is, laws
that
require a person to speak against their will and in opposition to
their
sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. In trying to
prove
that the consent form does this, Agudah's case will undoubtedly focus
on
such seminal cases as Wooley v. Maynard, a 1977 Supreme Court case
invalidating a law requiring residents of New Hampshire to display the
state
motto, "Live Free or Die," on license plates because residents who
were
Jehovah's Witnesses did not agree with that as a life philosophy. The
group
will also probably cite West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
a 1943
Supreme Court case that ruled that students who were Jehovah's
Witnesses
could not be compelled to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of
Allegiance in contravention of their religious beliefs.
Maynard and Barnette are important First Amendment cases. But they
deal with
laws that force a religious person to express an opinion or philosophy
that
is contrary to his religious beliefs. They say nothing about providing
factual information regarding potential risks to the recipient of a
medical
procedure. That body of case law—less well-known, but much more on
point
(and, I suspect, missing from Agudah's legal research)—makes clear
that the
government has broad authority to force those who perform medical
procedures
to provide such information, on the basis of the government's
fundamental
responsibility to protect public safety and health.
Two federal circuit court of appeals decisions from this past year,
Planned
Parenthood v. Rounds and Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, make this
point
in the context of a medical procedure even more charged than
circumcision:
abortion. These decisions come out of a recent trend in the state
courts to
require doctors to provide information to pregnant women about the
health
risks of an abortion, and in particular compel them to disclose
studies
showing a higher risk of suicide in women who have abortions. Planned
Parenthood has vigorously challenged these informed-consent mandates
in a
number of jurisdictions on First Amendment grounds on behalf of
doctors who
argue that the state cannot compel them to speak to patients about
such
risks. Sound familiar?
Employing the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in its plurality
opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), both recent federal
circuit
court decisions uphold the challenged legislation on the grounds that
if the
information the state requires to be made available is "truthful and
not
misleading," and it is relevant to an informed decision as to whether
to
have the procedure done, the state can require that it be provided—
whether
regarding abortion or "any [other] medical procedure."
These are not the only such decisions. Courts have upheld informed-
consent
laws against "compelled speech" claims in the context of state laws
requiring disclosure of HIV status prior to intercourse, rejected
"compelled
speech" defenses in tort where communicable genital herpes was not
disclosed, and have come out in favor of the state in a number of
other
abortion-related cases. As the court said in the HIV case, the state
has an
"overriding, legitimate and compelling interest in preserving the life
of
its citizens," which gives it the authority to forbid "remaining
silent and
knowingly exposing others to an incurable disease."
New York's new regulations regarding direct oral suction fall squarely
within this line of cases. There is no question that the risk to an
8-day-old baby of contracting a potentially fatal herpes infection
from
direct oral suction is "relevant" to a parent's decision whether to
have the
circumcision performed in that manner. As long as the information
provided
is "truthful and not misleading," the city is in the clear.
The notice published with the proposed law from the Board of Health
suggests
that it is already well aware of the legal basis for the regulation.
It says
that between 2004 and 2011, it learned of 11 cases of "laboratory-
confirmed
herpes simplex virus infection in male infants following circumcisions
that
were likely to have been associated with direct oral suction." Two of
these
infants died, at least two others suffered brain damage, and, most
important, "[t]he parents of some of these infants have said that they
did
not know before their child's circumcision that direct oral suction
would be
performed." In addition, it says that since 2004, the Department of
Health
"has received multiple complaints from parents whose children may not
have
been infected who were also not aware that direct oral suction was
going to
be performed as part of their sons' circumcisions." The informed-
consent law
responds directly to these legitimate concerns. Under no fair reading
of the
law has the Board of Health overstepped its powers under the First
Amendment.
***
So, what of Agudah's argument that this law is only the first step
toward
full government regulation of circumcision, or even, in the fashion of
the
recent ruling of a German court, banning the ritual? One thing's for
sure:
If the Orthodox community continues to vehemently oppose this modest
consent
law it will encourage and likely lead to greater regulation of
circumcision
in the future. This is widely understood in the context of self-
regulated
industries. (Think baseball and steroids.) If a group or industry
agrees to
moderate self-policing and 30,000-foot government oversight, the
government
hangs back. But if they insist on complete autonomy, creating the
impression
that the industry thinks it is above the law, the government
inevitably
steps in and imposes more stringent regulation.
The same is true of religious groups. Just look at Mormons and
polygamy.
President Lincoln signed into law a ban on polygamy in 1862, but he
signaled
that he would not enforce the law for a time in deference to Mormons'
religious beliefs, hoping that they would put an end to the practice
without
government interference. But some prominent Mormons refused, insisting
vociferously that their religious practices trumped the law. Some even
rose
up in civil disobedience.
It didn't end well for them. In the years following Lincoln's ban, the
federal government stepped in to impose its authority and control by
seizing
church property and imposing criminal sanctions on polygamists. The
church
was nearly driven into the ground by the time it abandoned the
doctrine of
multiple wives in 1890.
Some in the ultra-Orthodox community have threatened to take a
similarly
hard line with the informed-consent law. Unfortunately, it's only the
latest
in a series of incidents in which the impression given by some in the
community is that they think they are above secular law. It's an
attitude
that fails to acknowledge and appreciate the unique-in-history
openness of
American society to minority religions, and especially to Jews.
Moreover, vehement opposition to this modest regulation will turn
popular
opinion against religious Jews by creating the impression that we put
tradition over the safety of babies, and that ritual matters to us
more than
life. And it will reinforce the mistaken impression in wider American
society that opposition to direct oral suction and opposition to
circumcision are one and the same, which they are not. England has had
some
modest form of regulation of religious circumcisions for a very long
time,
with no adverse consequences. Here in America, the government
regulates
marriage, even between religious individuals. I've never heard an
Orthodox
Jew complain about that.
If Agudah's lawsuit goes forward, it will very likely make bad law for
those
who care deeply about the rights of religious minorities and the value
of
religious autonomy—as did the cases that came out of Mormons'
rejection of
the regulation of marriage practices. The threatened circumcision case
will
make clear that the government has the authority to regulate and
restrict
religious practices when there is a risk to health and safety, giving
greater credence and legal authority for those who would go further
than a
mere informed-consent law and forbid certain religious practices
altogether—perhaps direct oral suction, or circumcision itself.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Senator Rubio condemns “radical Islamists” but wants to keep funding Islamic world
Rubio stated in the video above that he was for the undeclared,
unConstitutional war against Libya using taxpayer dollars. In fact, he
wanted a more forceful attack, and he is for pumping more taxpayer
money into Libya and other Islamic countries.
----
typical minority member.
they think the USA is a charity organization.
On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rubio been smoking that wacky-cubacky again?
>
> **
> creeping posted: "via The Shark Tank, Rubio Condemns Radical Islam in
> Senate Speech:http://youtu.be/SFOBW7xkz7gThose who are truly concerned
> about the future of this country should be asking themselves why these
> types of hypocrites dominate U.S. government and eith" Respond to this
> post by replying above this line
> New post on *Creeping Sharia*
> <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/> Senator Rubio
> condemns "radical Islamists" but wants to keep funding Islamic
> world<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>by
> creeping <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/>
>
> via The Shark Tank, Rubio Condemns Radical Islam in Senate Speech:http://youtu.be/SFOBW7xkz7gThose who are truly concerned about the future
> of this country should be asking themselves why these types of hypocrites
> dominate U.S. government and either lack an understanding of, or blatantly
> disregard, the Constitution. What article or amendment in the Constitution
> gives U.S. [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
> *creeping <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/>* |
> September 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Tags: Creeping
> Sharia<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=creeping-sharia>,
> islam <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=islam>,
> Life<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=life>,
> Media <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=media>,
> Muslim<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=muslim>,
> Politics <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=politics>,
> Random<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=random>,
> Religion <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=religion>,
> Sharia<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=sharia>,
> utube <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=utube> | Categories:
> Alerts<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=10378>,
> Creeping Sharia <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=4115925>,
> Florida<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=1657>,
> Media <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=292>,
> News<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=103>,
> Politics <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=398>,
> Religion<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=116>,
> Sharia <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=29069>,
> Video<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=412>| URL:http://wp.me/pbU4v-cEJ
>
> Comment<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
> See all comments<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
unConstitutional war against Libya using taxpayer dollars. In fact, he
wanted a more forceful attack, and he is for pumping more taxpayer
money into Libya and other Islamic countries.
----
typical minority member.
they think the USA is a charity organization.
On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rubio been smoking that wacky-cubacky again?
>
> **
> creeping posted: "via The Shark Tank, Rubio Condemns Radical Islam in
> Senate Speech:http://youtu.be/SFOBW7xkz7gThose who are truly concerned
> about the future of this country should be asking themselves why these
> types of hypocrites dominate U.S. government and eith" Respond to this
> post by replying above this line
> New post on *Creeping Sharia*
> <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/> Senator Rubio
> condemns "radical Islamists" but wants to keep funding Islamic
> world<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>by
> creeping <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/>
>
> via The Shark Tank, Rubio Condemns Radical Islam in Senate Speech:http://youtu.be/SFOBW7xkz7gThose who are truly concerned about the future
> of this country should be asking themselves why these types of hypocrites
> dominate U.S. government and either lack an understanding of, or blatantly
> disregard, the Constitution. What article or amendment in the Constitution
> gives U.S. [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
> *creeping <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/>* |
> September 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Tags: Creeping
> Sharia<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=creeping-sharia>,
> islam <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=islam>,
> Life<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=life>,
> Media <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=media>,
> Muslim<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=muslim>,
> Politics <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=politics>,
> Random<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=random>,
> Religion <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=religion>,
> Sharia<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=sharia>,
> utube <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?tag=utube> | Categories:
> Alerts<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=10378>,
> Creeping Sharia <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=4115925>,
> Florida<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=1657>,
> Media <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=292>,
> News<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=103>,
> Politics <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=398>,
> Religion<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=116>,
> Sharia <http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=29069>,
> Video<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?cat=412>| URL:http://wp.me/pbU4v-cEJ
>
> Comment<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
> See all comments<http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/senator-rubio-condemns...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Senator Rubio condemns “radical Islamists” but wants to keep funding Islamic world
rubio been smoking that wacky-cubacky again?
creeping posted: "via The Shark Tank, Rubio Condemns Radical Islam in Senate Speech: http://youtu.be/SFOBW7xkz7g Those who are truly concerned about the future of this country should be asking themselves why these types of hypocrites dominate U.S. government and eith"
|
WordPress.com--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
U.S. Army Lt. Col. Fired for Criticizing Islam at Joint Forces Staff College
creeping posted: "via Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley Fired for Criticizing Islam at Joint Forces Staff College. In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces"
|
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)