Is Some Religion Running in Your Arteries?

 Is Some Religion Running in Your Arteries?

Stephanie,

I welcome your well-researched contribution to a growing library of articles about the Gulen Movement. A similar study in Ohio, and in Utah were published. Your article is a fine complement to the earlier researches published in Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst, in Act for America by Guy Rodgers, in MERIA Journal by Bill Parks, and in National Review by Michael Rubin. Your article must be read together with others to put the problem lurking in the darkness of naïveté, in a greater perspective. The issue is not only a school issue. Only those knowledgeable on the subject can appreciate your investigative work. Needless to say, you will be receiving many comments praising the Harmony schools either from the uninformed people or from the followers of the Gulen movement in an attempt to whitewash the truth.

The lesson to be learned from your research is that this Movement is “moving” very fast within our midst for its ominous objective. The hidden objective is to engineer societies in numerous countries in the vision of this cult. In that sense, this cult and its guru are no different from others this country hosted. This one, however, is distinct in one very important way. This cult operates in disguise; it does not have an established, identifiable, traceable existence for any illegal operation. It operates not only within the law, but also for seemingly a laudable purpose, “interfaith dialogue”. Its guru denies any association to the Movement’s activities, which is true because of the way the system operates. The Movement operates without a central authority, by the guru’s own admission, but with a web of so-called volunteers.

Volunteers are recruited in the growing number of schools founded by businessmen, followers of the Movement, to educate the children of poorer or minority families. The graduates are then given jobs or financial assistance to start up their own business. Their one obligation for the favors is to donate 5 to 15% (relative to the size of the business) of their profits to a cause of the Movement. This is the snowballing effect of the Movement’s financial strength. Those businessmen, or foundations funded by them, establish schools and mosques, and own media companies, a bank and an insurance company.

The model used in the political field is based on the benevolent involvement of those businessmen in their community. The charity activities catapult them into politics. First they establish their roots in the media, then in the security apparatus and judiciary, in order to silence any opposition.

Their tool is dissimulation, deception of public’s view. In the guru’s own words, “you must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers. … The work to be done is in confronting the world”. They are required to work with great patience, because it takes at least a generation to invade all “the arteries”. Once their numbers grow their social pressure will naturally chase away the others. They co-operate with authorities, promote “interfaith dialogue”, are not confrontational, do not show religious prejudice, fit into the social fabric, denounce violence and militant Islam, while, however, staying true to the Islamic traditions, particularly regarding women. This is a symbiotic existence with democracy.

Another rule is for the leader of any operation is to deny any association with the guru or the Movement. Anyone interested in a success story of this system needs to look no further than Turkey’s transformation in the last forty years. The President and the PM of the country still deny their association with the guru and the Movement.

The question now is whether this Movement will succeed also at the global level, including in the U.S. The answer is an unequivocal Yes. Why do you think the guru set-up shop in the U.S.? A worldwide operation can be led best from the only super power country. The Movement exploits the U.S. democracy and policies to the fullest for spreading nationwide and globally while pulling the wool over the eyes of the U.S. politicians and academics. The Movement has a lobbying office in D.C., and boasts association with many congressmen/women and academia. It emulates the Christian missionary tactics. It even gets the U.S. government’s support for such a “laudable” objective as “interfaith dialogue”, which conforms to the U.S. foreign policy pursued after 9/11. Public funds and CIA assistance to the Movement’s activities (for example posting their agents as teachers in the Movement’s schools abroad) have been reported, and not denied by the government. Why do you think Russia and Uzbekistan closed down the operations of the Movement? The ultimate objective is to mirror the power of the Pope in the Islamic world, ecumenism, and caliphate.

June 9, 2011

The Bogus of "Alliance of Civilizations"

The Bogus of "Alliance of Civilizations"

In the days following the horrific London bombings the announcement of a new international initiative did not make it to the pages of leading newspapers. UPI and AFP reported on July 14, 2005 a UN announcement of “an initiative by Spain and Turkey to try to bridge the divide between the West and the Islamic world”. The UN Secretary General announced, despite the fact that the UN General Assembly already has an item before it called “Dialogue Between Civilizations”, that he will convene a meeting of  “a high level group of eminent persons to guide the initiative and …present … a plan of action in late 2006”. In the State Dept.’s Daily Press Briefing of July 15, Spokesman McCormack welcomed the initiative as “the broadest support for participation in” the President’s Broader Middle East and North African Initiative.

The new initiative called “Alliance of Civilizations” was conceived by the Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero. Kofi Annan suggested that Zapatero should act together with a leader from the Muslim world. Zapatero approached the Turkish Prime Minister, considering that Turkey may represent a moderate Islam, because she has for the first time in her republican history a religiously oriented political party in power. The latter, who systematically and methodically labors to introduce religious authority into the political system, found the idea as a golden opportunity to gain international support for his quest.

As may be inferred from an Islamist Prime Minister’s enthusiasm, the idea is as much flawed, as it is ambitious. The initiative may not produce any useful results because it is based on the wrong premises that the current violence is a conflict between civilizations (a metaphor for the term cultures), and that the differences between cultures can be resolved by international recommendations and/or political measures.

There seems to exist too few thinkers (certainly no politicians) who understood that the current international violence is not because of differences between cultures in general, and between Christianity and Islam in particular. Nor is it international criminal acts that can be brought under control with military, police and judicial actions alone. This violence is a socio-psychological phenomenon, a product of socio-political developments of recent decades. It is a cowardly reaction (a counter-force) of traditionalists/dogmatists around the world to the power of the contemporary civilization.

History and political science do not support the expectation that cultural (religious) differences can be resolved by political intervention. Interference in cultures (religions) by political authority to establish an alliance between them will run counter to the ideal of separation of Church and State  -a rainbow never really reached. Such intervention may further and even legitimize the intervention of religion in politics, thus evaporating the glimmer of hope of separation of Church and State. Therefore, while the initiative may not be newsworthy it should not escape our attention because it may carry with it an unwitting danger.

The problem has to be dealt with socio–psychological means. Public’s rationalism, not political or clerical imposition, can achieve an alliance of universal civilization and peace. A bold and resolute action to eliminate all dogmatic teaching in all cultures (religions), and to replace them solely with a rationalist learning may succeed. The Turkish Republic’s founder Ataturk’s belief in rationalist education, and that differences in cultures contribute, and must contribute, to the continued development of a common universal civilization may serve as a guide to all of us.

July 16, 2005

Public Diplomacy and Terrorism

Public Diplomacy and Terrorism

The September 1, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon were an eye opener. Firstly because of the extent of damage they caused, secondly because of the vulnerability of the best informed and equipped country in the world, and finally because of the extent of determination and savagery of the criminals responsible.

A lot has been debated by a proliferating number of “experts”. The official reaction ranged from “revenge” and “crusade” to “war against terrorism” and “criminal acts”. Other than what and how it happened, little has been said about why it happened. A correct diagnosis of this unjustified resentment of the US and an accurate definition of terrorism, for a long-term solution of the problem, are still missing.

To begin with, terrorism must be defined in a generally acceptable manner so as not to cause any consternation and frustration among people. Terrorism is perceived differently by different groups and in different circumstances. When Armenians waged terror against Turks from 1880s to 1980s, they were viewed as legitimate revenge and were cheered by Europeans who had ulterior motives. When Palestinians and Hamas terrorized us all, they were in fact called terrorists and were rightly condemned. When Northern Ireland resorted to terror against Britain, they were considered separatist nationalists and were called to negotiate. When PKK killed indiscriminately in Turkey, again the European liberals called for democracy and human rights without mercy to the victims and without regard to the consequences on the regional stability. When Chechens fight for their liberation from the Russian yoke, it is called terrorism but the world keeps quiet for fear of the Russian wrath. When Bosnians and Kosovars fought for their independence from disintegrating Yugoslavia, just as Croats and Slovenians did, they were branded as Muslim insurgents. The different perception of these and many other terrorist acts in Spain, France, Italy, Indonesia, South America for political convenience brought us to today’s disaster. Many countries in fact even gave refuge to, trained, financed, or encouraged specific terrorist groups as part of their foreign policy.

Current loose and irresponsible identification of terrorism with Islam is also wrong. It may even lead to more terror and to “a clash of cultures”. True, the current terrorists are Muslim, and they are inspired by their religion, but basically they are of Arab or Persian origin. They are using the religion as a weapon in the absence of any other power they possess. Religion is the cheapest effective armament. Our politicians and media have to stop emphasizing that the Chechen, Kosovar, or Iraqi and Afghani terrorists are Muslims. Terrorist is terrorist, no matter what religious, national or political affiliation. As we are sensitive to secularism in our domestic affairs, we should be equally secular in our international affairs. We should not be looking at everything through religious glasses. Even then, if by reference to Muslims we mean fundamentalists, we should not forget that we have in our midst fundamentalists as well. Several suicidal fanatics (fundamentalists) were killed in Guyana, San Francisco, and Waco in not too distant past. Terrorism, though an entirely different issue, we need to fight, like we have to fight against fundamentalism just as vigorously. We need, therefore, to define terrorism internationally, and be honest and consistent in its interpretation. Only then will we be credible in our war against terrorism.

As to the cause of systematic attacks on the US in particular, and of the US resentment in general, the apparent reason is claimed to be the presence of Israel on the so-called Arab soil. The real reason, however, lies in the frustration of the Arab and Persian world with their theocratic system. These masses are ruled by the Koran instead of civil codes. The non-secular system does not allow education, science, modernization and thus progress. In short, they still live with the medieval scripture and with anachronistic norms. Continued economic despair in the midst of a steadily prospering world makes these masses angry, intolerant and violent towards the rest of the world. Instead of getting to work to better themselves so that they can compete with the advanced nations, they do what they know best and easy: to destroy the challenger. The advanced world is of course represented by the US. Bin Laden’s reference to 80 years of humiliation in his recent video appearance was found by many commentators as puzzling. The reference is most probably to Ataturk’s abolition of the Caliphate and the Shari’a. This unique and courageous act by Ataturk lifted the Ottoman influence and control over the politically inexperienced and unprepared people, and exposed them to the British influence and control. That is why the original hatred is in fact against Ataturk and the British. Israel is an excuse, Islam is the weapon, and the high profile target is the US as the surrogate of British.

The US is unfairly identified with the historical wrongdoings of the old world, especially when the US is so closely associated with Britain. We have to admit that on occasions we unquestioningly followed the UK policies without taking into account that Europe’s imperialistic, colonial, nationalist, quarrelsome, selfish past still has an effect on the developing world, as well as on Europe’s policies. Our association with the problems of the old world have already cost us two world wars and several foreign policy failures. Until after WWII, the US was regarded as the young, idealist, just, and benevolent leader of the new nations, a savior for the poorer nations. Having associated itself too closely with the defunct imperialists of Europe in the Cold War period, the US came to be perceived as European ideology’s representative and protector.

Therefore there are two distinct aspects to this problem: the non-secular regimes, and the image of the US as the protector of the old colonial countries. We should pursue the following course:

1-      A campaign of secular democracy must be undertaken in the non-secular Arab and Persian nations. Although such reforms would best succeed if launched by a courageous national leader the possibility of a repeat of the genius of Ataturk is very remote. Therefore, the US could follow the same democracy campaign that it did to win the Cold War. However, in the Cold War the adversaries were non-democratic but secular countries. In the New War, secular regime and secular education must be the basic component of the campaign for democracy. Ataturk’s reforms implemented in founding the Turkish Republic could serve us as model.

2-      The US should play the role of a fair and independent advisor and helper of the world left behind our own fast pace. We should act as Americans, not as West in association with Europe in general and with Britain in particular. We should reassume our old image and role of neutral and helpful Americans. In doing so, we have to be careful not to appear as imposing our own culture (McDonalds, Disney, Hollywood, etc.) on the Muslims. -Furthermore, in order to be credible and to gain their trust, we have to be consistent in our policy of secularism. The use of double standards for political convenience or for short-term economic interests will defeat our efforts. We must stop supporting the autocrats of the Shari’a regimes, as we did not support communist dictators. -This will mean sacrifice on our part of oil products. But, no war can be won without sacrifices. There are other oil countries, in fact, with which we did not diligently pursue a closer relation after the demise of the Soviet hegemony. Closer ties with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan may also help us to win them away from the Russian influence, which Russia is already beginning to reassert. A case in point is Georgia where Russia was to close its military bases by last July. It did not. Instead, while taking advantage of War on Terrorism, it is preparing to invade Georgia on the pretext of Abkhaz and Chechen “terrorism”. -We have to be very cautious about not having an ulterior motive of establishing a political influence or of exploiting the local resources (just as the colonials did). -We also have to stay clear from appearing to help one local political faction or another. The recent history shows that involvement in support for independence or nation building catches us between two fires. Let us not have any illusion about it, by mopping up the Taliban we will be presenting Afghanistan to Russia in a silver tray. We are in fact fighting the war that they could not win, just as we did in Viet-Nam the one that French could not win. Therefore, we should not get in the quagmire of nation building in Afghanistan after we complete our operation. Our economic and financial aid policies must be contingent upon solely secular democracy and secular education.

October 15, 2001

Selling the Freedom of Other People for the Price of Oil

    

Selling the Freedom of Other People for the Price of Oil

    Masha Lipman’s article in Washington Post Nov. 22, 2002 issue regarding President Bush’s support for Putin’s suppression of Chechen liberation movement is an eye opener. Reportedly, the President’s support of Putin's repression is for obtaining in return Putin’s support for campaign against Iraq.

    Firstly, we need very urgently a clear definition of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11. The phobic mood we have been in since then, every action against any “establishment” is considered terrorism, to the extent that we will soon be deprived of or denied our freedom of speech, assembly and opposition. Chechen action is clearly a desperate attempt to gain liberation from Russian oppression.

    Secondly, the comparison by the President of Moscow theater occupation with 9/11 is belittling the tragedy and the political importance of 9/11. There is no parallel between the two in any shape or form.

    Thirdly, has defense of freedom, which we claim to be the champion of, been so marginalized that it can be exchanged for support for a military campaign that half of the US and of the world are doubtful of its reasons and consequences. Is all of this for the freedom of the Iraqi people at the expense of the freedom of the Chechens? Why not defend the Chechen freedom as much as we want to defend that of the Iraqis?

    Fourthly, among the oft-changed objectives for the Iraq war mentioned by the President there is also freedom of the Iraqi people. In fact, he was prepared to go it alone for that purpose. Since when is Russia a freedom fighter? Where were they when we were fighting for it over the last half-century? Isn’t this the same Russia of today that refuses our pleas to discontinue assistance to the Iranian nuclear program?

    It was further reported in your Sunday Nov. 24 edition that the President also promised Putin to maintain world oil prices high after the Iraq war. That means you and me, the men on the highways, will be paying to help Russia and, of course collaterally, Saudi Arabia, neither of whom have clean hands in terms of freedom.

    But apparently, this is not the point, the point seems to be to help the hawks of the war, who have an invested interest in oil. We already feel the effects of this war for oil policy, an extended economic slump.

Nov. 26, 2002

Some Problems Imbedded in the Constitution

Some Problems Imbedded in the Constitution

     There is an unending public and legal debate in our society over two issues that affect two fundamental concepts in our Constitution: the right to bear arms, and freedom of religion, including secular government. Since only the Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution, it must be Congress’ duty to tackle these hard-to-crack issues.

1.   The second amendment to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights provides that: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The most common arguments in defense of this Amendment are that it stands for the right of self defense and of sports. The claim that it is for self defense begs the question "against whom?". This claim is tantamount to believing that we are living in an uncivilized society. As to the right of sports such mundane right does not need constitutional protection any more than the right to play basketball does.

The modern world did not cite arms as a right when they drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor did the Covenants of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights. As I see it, although keeping and bearing arms is conceived in the Constitution as a right, this right is conditioned by a) the security of individual States, and b) maintaining a regular militia. While States may have considered plausible a conflict between them and/or with the federal government in 1791, it is obviously out of the question today. The Supreme Court may decide that the Second Amendment was intended for those purposes only, and it may not be interpreted in an absolute sense. And, if there are still some skeptics about the intentions of the federal government or of States against each other, a non-aggression pact may be concluded between all of them.

It is argued that an arms prohibition may be introduced if the Second Amendment is rendered ineffective. However, prohibitions never work. Amendment XVIII prohibited a much less noxious material, liquor. The embarrassment it created had to be ended by its repeal by Amendment XXI.

The Second Amendment is also causing a terrible embarrassment, though in this instance with the freedom it claims. Being an embarrassment nevertheless, it could be ended also by repealing it. Arms are just another possession; they need not be singled out in the Constitution either as a right or as a prohibition. No mention, no debate. Let arms be regulated like many other hazardous things in life, like alcohol, drugs or driving that did not need a special treatment in the Constitution.

2.      There is no general provision in the Constitution on freedom of religion, equality, or on separation of Church and State. The only reference to non-discrimination on grounds of religion is found in the very last sentence of the Constitution (almost like an after-thought). That last sentence reads, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. This provision ensures religious equality for federal employment only. The Jeffersonian separation of church and federal state did not find its way to the Constitution.

The Constitution regulates mostly the rights and duties of the United States (the Federal government), and some of its relations with individual States. When the Constitution was submitted to all States for ratification many demanded amendments to secure more rights for States and for the people. The adoption of the Bill of Rights two years later was the result. Article I enumerated the basic freedoms of the people, and enjoined the United States making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It also forbade making laws that “establish religion”. This, of course, means that the Federal government may not legislate or govern by religion. However, there is no such proscription for individual States. In fact, Article X of the Bill of Rights provides, “The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Therefore, States can theoretically declare a State religion.

            Bearing in mind that both the Federal and individual States are enjoined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not to interfere with religion, but the same prohibition does not apply to the interference by religion in politics, it may be ideal to imbed in the Constitution -without any ambiguity- the oft-boasted secularity of the federal state as well as of the States.

            I have no doubt that a large majority of “we the people” does not want to waste any more time, resources and lives with these debates. Can’t we depend on our representatives in Congress to spare time from political bickering and have enough courage to tackle these issues fundamental to human rights and to democracy, instead of always passing the hot potato to the Supreme Court?

September 9, 2003