- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
History Repeats itself in Libya… Sort of
On September 11th, The United States Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning the attempts of “misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The statement was in response to growing outrage stemming from an anti-Islamic movie produced in America. The movie was recently translated into Arabic and viewed via the internet throughout the Middle East and other Arabic speaking nations.
Although the statement issued by the U.S. Embassy was intended to assuage the offended and deter potentially violent reactions, attacks on American embassies ensued in both Egypt and Libya. Another attack followed on September 13th in Yemen.
The original statement by the U.S. Embassy met criticism from, among others, Mitt Romney. Romney cited the statement as “akin to an apology,” and felt that the statement did not “defend [American] values,” implying that the President did not support the first amendment freedom of speech exercised by the American film maker.
So let’s say Romney is right. Let’s make the inference Romney wants us to make and say that President Obama’s take on the first amendment is that it is not absolute, that it does not extend to those who offend Muslims. Even if this stretcher (as Mark Twain would call it) were accurate, it wouldn’t be the first time America denounced a foundational value in the face of Muslim opposition.
In America’s infancy, the government faced troubled waters, quite literally. American merchant ships were being attacked off the Barbary Coast by Muslim pirates. In order to establish more peaceful relations with the Islamic North African nations (modern day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco), the American Congress proposed and unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797.
The controversial legacy of this treaty lies in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The American Congress at the time clearly saw a benefit to denouncing America as a fundamentally Christian nation. The benefit was the safety of American sailors and hostages from hostile, state-sponsored Muslim pirates.
Now, if you are of the opinion that the United States was founded on the Christian religion, this section of the treaty can mean one of two things: 1) you are dead wrong, or 2) the United States was simply trying to ease relations between Americans and Muslims by telling an outright lie. I tend to favor option one, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past an American government to lie in a treaty. (By the way, if Congress did blatantly break the ninth commandment in the treaty, it does not help the argument that American government was founded on the Christian religion.)
Whether or not America was “founded on the Christian religion” can be debated, but the fact that it was founded by imperfect Christians who touted the guiding principles and values found in the Christian Bible is an indisputable truth. Still, the statement in Article 11 is clearly an attempt by the American government to distance itself from any American value derived from Christianity.
This brings us full circle to the statement made in Cairo.
In an effort to protect innocent lives, the American Embassy in Cairo distanced itself from a specific value that Americans hold dear: freedom of speech. Did America revoke the freedom of speech from the hateful individuals whose handiwork incited the violence that resulted in the murder of another American? No. Did America apologize for those hateful individuals’ actions? Yes, but only in an effort to safeguard Americans from the consequences of those idiots’ actions.
Ultimately, what has been revealed through Mitt Romney’s commentary regarding the situation in Libya is the unwavering belief many people have in American exceptionalism. But this is not simply a belief that America is exceptional; it is an arrogant worldview that incorrectly assumes that America can do no wrong and that Americans are always right, no matter who is killed as a result of their actions—even other Americans.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
None other than the Harvard Business Review reports that the ability to communicate is the number one trait top executives possess. The ability to communicate trumps ambition, education, sound decisions, and a capacity for hard work. It’s too damn bad the folks on top can’t delegate their talent. Way too many business people cannot write. How well I know. My eyes glaze over at their attempts. Check out most corporations’ mission statements and you’ll need a café latte with an extra shot of espresso. Here’s a snoozer for you: “We strive to globally provide access to multimedia-based intellectual capital and efficiently simplify effective so Read on →
For some reason, a letter from the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation was characterized as having been received by NBC News, as if it were some sort of privileged communication. In fact, the thing was a press release and rather obviously designed to change the conversation about the Heritage Foundation from trying to defend the indefensible "study" of Hispanic intellectual insufficiency to food stamps, a real two-fer issue. Two-fer in the sense of being offensive on two fronts since the dollars doled out represent a subsidy to industrial agriculture, even as they serve to remind the indigent that, if they're Read on →
In this day of anonymous email trashings, un-informed blog posts, and you tube mistakes that last forever, we rarely see political second chances. But last week a disgraced public servant rose like a Phoenix from the ashes to reclaim former glory in the political arena. Mark Sanford has been elected to represent Charleston, and South Carolina, in the United States Congress. In a room where everyone is addressed as “honorable” Sanford will have an opportunity to regain the revered glow that accompanied him during his magical time as governor of one of the self-proclaimed great states in this country, and finally bec Read on →
If state Democrats want to win big elections like the one they lost Tuesday on the coast, they’re going to have to get busy and retake control of the state Senate. Why? Because the outcome of Tuesday’s election was practically determined two years before the special contest between GOP former Gov. Mark Sanford and challenger Elizabeth Colbert Busch. Why? Because constitutionally-required redistricting to even population changes after the 2010 census made it tough for any Democrat to win. In the First Congressional District, for example, voting age blacks comprised just 18.2 percent of voters. Huh, you might wonder? On the coast where African Americans comprise 30 percent of Charl Read on →