Secret Lesbians Opposing Barbarians

Driving toward the west side of the state and listening to the radio, I hear “sharia.”  I remember this word from a USAToday article.  In Egypt, the citizens are debating about sharia which describes the (potentially) volatile mixology of government and religion.

Last week, I drafted these words:

In USAToday, on the inside cover page, is an article about political divisions in Egypt.  If you’re an American, you were required to take history courses—or maybe you watched the HBO series John Adams—and know that our constitutional framers were at odds after the Revolution.  I want to say that our issues were different than what Egypt—and the other countries who participated in the Arab Spring—deal with.  We were precise and exact in our principles; lines were clearly drawn.  There was what happened and what almost happened before the good guys won.

The Egyptians are stuck, debating fundamental rights for women and minorities.  Many are citing sharia which calls for adherence to 7thC laws.  The article defines it to be a “style of life.”  However, this definition doesn’t give enough depth to this word to warrant a protest or the cost of ink.  I Google it and find:

[It is] God’s revealed law, perfect and eternal…. By logical extension, any criticism of shari'a is heresy.  Muslims who deny the validity of shari'a in any way are labeled as non-Muslims (infidels) […]  they face the threat of being prosecuted for apostasy, a crime that carries the death penalty in shari'a.     -Discoverthenetworks

So, you can gather from this statement that the adherence to shari'a is important.  It is so important, that they want to list the requirements in their constitution.  If this country will put people to death for shari'a infractions, they should make a list.  However, according to the article, Egyptians aren’t protesting the items on the list, they are protesting the presence of a list.  It will curtail some civil rights and civil rights for some, and it will be enforced at the highest level of government.  That’s no laughing matter.  It’s understandable why Mohamed Abou El=Ghar (President of the liberal—that’s right, you heard me say liberal—Egyptian Social Democratic Party) was quoted as saying, “We consider (the constitution) a matter of life and death.”

If you deconstruct this statement, you can assume that he is saying:
1. The constitution is a matter of life and death

2. That the constitution could limit rights and freedom of expression is a matter of life and death

Egypt is a remarkably different position than, “All men are created equal.”  I can’t remember if this sage saying was the result of a unified awakening by our founding fathers or was a strongly debated position, but America got it right.  Unfortunately, we didn’t acknowledge it—through a Civil War, Reconstruction, and after the Civil Rights movement—, continuing today without equal rights for LGBTs.  So, Americans caught and captured the awe inspiring words in print—230+ years ago—but are stuck when deciphering the hidden code in “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” 

Still, there's a big gap between us and them.  They struggle with whether women should be completely covered, thus making them invisible.  They struggle with whether the religious majority should have absolute power.  On the other hand, we built this nation with humans from a different country who were illegally imprisoned, tortured, raped, and denied citizenship.  Yes, I need to acknowledge the America's resting potential for atrocity when I fold up the USAToday and say, “Barbarians.”

It’s easy to forget that Americans died, fighting their ancestors and assumed institutions during the American Revolution and then their countrymen during a subsequent one.  Tony Kuschner, screenplay writer for Angels In America, said in an interview that ~800,000 Americans died during four years of the Civil War.  In today’s numbers, that’s 80,259,000 Americans.  It’s staggering what humans will do for freedom, and we can’t minimize the need for both sides to be heard.    

But, I couldn’t bring myself to post this entry.  For one, it’s not funny.  My intent in starting TwoGirls was to write zany things about lesbian dating, but there’s a more dominant part of my brain that is anything but zany.  It likes to deconstruct situations and measure the amount of crazy—which is the sociopathic cousin of zany—in people who are in the news, in my office, and on the sidewalk. 

And then, today, I hear this foreign word that is familiar. It sits with me, reminding me of a working draft.  But, I get to the hotel room and turn on HBO.  I’m trying to not think about the blog until I feel inspired so that my renderings—if not zany—are organic.  On the box, I’m into Witness which is about a female reporter who risks her life, and a baby in her belly, to expose killers, rapists and kidnappers in the Congo. 

“This isn’t far from the Middle East,” I think.

“This isn’t far from humanity,” a different area of my mind counters with a qualitatively different trump card. 

I’m calling my own bluff.  I know where me is going with this. It’s trying to section off the crazy part of the world so that it’s safe to feel zany.  But, I won’t let me get away with it.  “Humans are humans.  The foreigner has figured out that much.”

Watching her move through the jungle with only a camera for protection, I realize that the Arab Spring and the Civil War have at least one significant difference.  The world is watching in real time.  They know it, and we know that they know it, and they know that we know that they know it.  The question is, “As witnesses, do we have:

1.  A responsibility to participate
2. A right to participate
3. A need to participate
4. An ability to participate  

Thank the area of my mind that counters with a qualitatively different trump card for “d”.   An answer of a, b, or c  is irrelevant without d.  If blogs are prevented in China, I can’t imagine TwoGirls will ever open in the Middle East.  As a witness, I have no outlet even if I had a responsibility, right, and or need. 

I’m still watching the photojournalist on her mission and I’m still on mine.  I’m thinking about how to organize S.L.O.B.s (Secret Lesbians Opposing Barbarians) in the Middle East. 

“We could go there and create an underground movement.  We will be covered by sharia,” me wants to help.

“It’s too risky for American looking lesbians to go over there, even if covered,” I counter.

“We could coordinate lesbians across the world who look Middle Eastern and fund them.”

“Where are you going to find enough Middle Eastern lesbians to go over for this cause?”

“We might need to hire Middle Eastern straight girls.”

Obviously, this plan isn't as sound as the one by the pregnant photojournalist who is traipsing through the forest with only a camera for protection while she looks for brutal murderers.  So, I turn to the international source.

• The Guardian ran an article in 2006.
• Amazon.com has a book by Brian Whitaker that was published in 2006. 

Wait a minute—nothing's happened for that region since ’06?  I return to Google  and find a site.

• http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/gay.htm

There are lists and lists of sources.  So, for tonight, I have to say, “More news later.”  I’m off to bed.   If you’re up and can’t sleep, read ahead and direct us to what’s interesting.  If you have other suggestions, do post.  I’ll catch up soon and tell you what I’ve done with the list to advance S.L.O.B.s' cause.