Oh, puhleeze.

[averygoodun42]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_re_us/us_us_religious_freedom

Why can't the US recognize irony? Why? Forcing other countries to be "free" through economic bible thumping isn't going to promote true freedom. It's just going to promote resentment at the cultural warfare, making enemies of countries who could be, at the very least, neutral.

But then, the US can't seem to grasp that any country other than it can do anything right, or has a right to do its own thing.

Bah.

I wish I were sleepy enough to go back to bed and not just lie there, obsessing.

Comments

[alienor77310.livejournal.com]

What annoys me most is the perpetual waiver for Saudi Arabia, possibly the most egregious of the offenders.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

No. Kidding! They hold the breeding and training ground for Al-Quaida, they have some of the most brutal human rights violations, and not just the lack of religious freedom, and...? They're a favored business partner whose crimes are slipped beneath the rug.

It's disgusting. Champion of the oppressed, my ass.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

I gotta say I disagree with you on this one. US economic sanctions are not for Xtianity, but for religious pluralism. It's a weak tool, but it is one of the few 'peaceful' means in the arsenal. The countries on this list are known for more human rights abuses than just the imprisonment and torture of religious dissidents. Or the shameful way women are treated in places where the state-religion sanctions cruelty and oppression. It may be wrong-headed to think that the suppression of religious pluralism is the first step to the suppression of all free thought, but that is the approach in these cases. Generally I think the US does not go far enough in registering its disapproval. Heck, China has Most Favored Nation status with regard to our country's international trade.

What approach do you think should be taken?

I think this would be an excellent topic for a discussion with your UU folks.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

I get that it's for religious pluralism and that those countries tend to be backward where human and women's rights are concerned. However, I don't think it's this country's business to bully them into complying. Not as National Policy!

I think the approach that should be taken is one that's already been taken in that organizations, whether from one nation or many, go in and educate and give and share. What the list currently is is a war-mongering list, making sure that other countries don't like who we don't like.

What gives the US the right to be the world's watchdog besides its might? It has a lousy human-rights record itself and has NOT been elected to this role. The world resents us for this very thing, and not unreasonably so.

[sbrande.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you have just said. Amen to that.

Loves you, Sonia :)

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Cheers!

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Friday I had training with our import/export group which covered the issue of embargoed countries, which we have to be aware of lest we get slammed for shipping to countries on the list. "Our product would be difficult to justify on the basis of humanitarian aid," one of the trainers said. Remembering this post I immediately asked if humanitarian aid was the exception to embargo. She said usually it is. There is a whole range of embargo from just specific items (arms for instance) to total embargo---which we had against Cuba until Clinton lifted sanctions in 2000 to allow for humanitarian intervention, though perversely at that time Cuba refused to accept it: I think they accept food and agricultural products now. Suffice to say it's an enormously complex issue with a variety of facets.