Wanted: Freedom from religion

[babylonsister]

Wanted: Freedom from religion

The theocratic repression in Iran is a reminder that there can be no freedom without secular government

By Michael Lind


June 23, 2009 | In the summer of 1968, as Soviet tanks rolled into communist Czechoslovakia to end the brief period of liberalization known as the "Prague Spring," W.H. Auden composed a poem titled "August 1968":

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

Watching the scenes of bravery and brutality that are being played out in Iran brings Auden's poem to mind. Another line comes to mind as well: the observation by W.E.B. DuBois in 1903 that "the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line." Racism has not been extinguished, but it has been corralled, by the now-universal principle of the separation of race and state. The demise of political racism leaves political religion standing as the most widespread form of tyranny in the world. The problem of the 21st century is the problem of the creedal line. If the problem is solved, it will be solved by universalizing the principle of the separation of religion and state.

Secular government is the basis of both liberty and democracy. It is important to emphasize this, because of the tendency to portray the struggle in Iran in terms of a global conflict between democracy and dictatorship. Set aside, for a moment, the fact that former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was one of four candidates, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who were approved to run as presidential candidates last May by the clerics of Iran's Guardian Council. It does not take away from the heroism of Mousavi or his followers to point out that if Ahmadinejad stole the election he stole an election that was already rigged.

The larger issue is the question of what comes first: separation of church and state, or democracy. America's Founders had no doubts on that score. Democracy requires citizens who are free from "superstition" and "priestcraft," to use 18th-century language. Americans have usually believed that religion can play a constructive role in a democratic republic by encouraging moral behavior. But in the traditional American view, theocratic democracy is nothing more than majoritarian tyranny, whether the clerics have a formal role in the state or merely tell the voters how to vote. And even secular democracy is not a goal in itself. It is merely a means to an end: the protection of natural rights.

The idea of universal, basic natural human rights is incompatible with theocracy in any form. While Christians and adherents of other religions can believe in natural rights, the theory of natural rights itself, influenced by ancient Greek sophists and Epicureans, is inherently secular. Natural rights by definition are those that ordinary people, using only their reason, can agree upon -- things like life and liberty and property or happiness, meaning access to subsistence. The list of natural rights varies from thinker to thinker, but they all have one thing in common -- they are not revealed by a divine intelligence to a prophet or priests.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/23/religion_iran/

[HillWilliam]

1. There is a wide chasm between being instructed

in what to think and being instructed in how to think. Even though I was brought up in a household of faith, I was raised by parents who valued using one's own individual mind to reach reasonable conclusions. You don't need a book to tell you how to be decent to your fellow human being, nor to function in a polite society, nor to create a polite society. If you do, then there's something pitifully lacking inside.

Sis, I have struggled with conflicting notions all my life. Is it laziness, is it lack of brainpower, just what is it that leads some people to follow ridiculous notions blindly, notions that clearly work against their own self-interests? Against all fact, against all demonstration, against all logic or argument, they'll head right off the cliff.

Meh. I'm not particularly Christian (or particularly anything else, either), but I find a good deal of value in MT 22:34-40. Jesus as a man had a huge amount of plain good sense. Two commandments were all he ever laid down: Love G'd (however you perceive It) with all your heart, mind, and strength; and secondly (and he stressed this being equal to the first part -- a fact which fundamentalists of all stripes conveniently ignore) that one love one's fellow human just as much. One cannot do one truly without doing the other, and one can do neither without some pretty deep and independent thought.

Just what I think, anyway. If someone is standing over your shoulder telling you how to do either, you can do neither very well. Certainly not on your own. There again, I think fundamentalists of all stripes tend to miss the whole point. Doesn't matter which G'd or book they follow. The bottom-line two rules are supposed to be the same, and one can't follow them under duress.

Rec'd.

[dmallind]

4. Why does not having any god to love (or hate) limit your ability to love fellow humans?

Does it also limit your ability to hate them? If not why not? How can it do one and not the other? Does the humanist manifesto not look like it has the best interests of humanity as its foundation?

[Seldona]

9. It doesn't limit one's ability to love fellow humans.

It is a rather absurd insult. I would die to save my wife and children. Gladly, if it ever came to it. I would do it with a smile on my face. If that isn't love, what the hell is?

[Djinn]

18. what a crock

Jesus as a man had a huge amount of plain good sense. Two commandments were all he ever laid down: Love G'd (however you perceive It) with all your heart, mind, and strength; and secondly (...) that one love one's fellow human just as much. One cannot do one truly without doing the other, and one can do neither without some pretty deep and independent thought.

I feel very sorry for you if you think that someone with zero belief in/need for solace from the mythology favored 2000 odd years ago is unable to fully love another human being.

[HillWilliam]

20. That's not what I meant at all

and I think you know it. You're just picking a fight here. If you read my whole post, you'd see that I don't feel the need for religion to guide anyone, or anyone standing over anyone's shoulder telling them how they should live. Decency, if anyone has it, should flow from the inside. I stated PLAINLY that I am not Christian or religious at all.

What is it with you adamant atheists? I'm rather agnostic myself in the matter of a specific godhead, but on DU, there is this rabid contingent of folks who foam at the mouth and instantly attack folks at the very mention of faith or religion. That looks the same as "atheist fundamentalism" to me. The "all one way or none" attacks sound just exactly the same as the RWers.

You need to drop the anger, dude. There are all degrees of spiritual experience. All I'm saying is that no one needs to stand over anyone to tell them how to experience it or how to live it. If you had READ my post instead of picking out a phrase to attack, you would have cadged that. What's wrong with taking a little bit of good sense from any sort of spiritual or moral experience and adding it to your own sense of living well and putting good into the world? If Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed or Vishnu or who-bloody-EVER said something that strikes one was valuable, WTF is wrong with considering it, valuing it, and accepting some of the good in it?

[Djinn]

34. Not angry and not adamant

I simply do not believe in a sky god. Nothing adamant or angry about that at all. There is no "atheist fundamentalism" what a ridiculous concept that is

If you didn't MEAN that perhaps it would have been easier for other posters to understand if you hadn't said it

Please let us know what you DID mean by:

Love G'd (however you perceive It) with all your heart, mind, and strength; and secondly (and he stressed this being equal to the first part -- a fact which fundamentalists of all stripes conveniently ignore) that one love one's fellow human just as much. One cannot do one truly without doing the other, and one can do neither without some pretty deep and independent thought.

Most people with a grasp of English would read this as you claiming one can not love one's fellow human without loving God, mainly because that's EXACTLY what you wrote

[Demeter]

2. Amen!

What else could I say in response to that proposal, atheist that I am? At home as well as in the Middle East, religion is a bad master. I think one's life can be informed by the ethical discussions within "religious" communities, but to put one's life into servitude to a religion that divides people is to work against all human kind.

[NeoGreen]

3. ffrf

http://www.ffrf.org/

[amb123]

5. Repeat After Me.

There is No Freedom without Church / State Separation.
There is No Freedom without Church / State Separation.
There is No Freedom without Church / State Separation.
There is No Freedom without Church / State Separation.
There is No Freedom without Church / State Separation.

[AntiFascist]

6. K&R, Prop 8 is the perfect example of theocratic control in the US...

the ONLY argument supporting Prop 8 is that a bare majority of citizens in CA found marriage equality to be offensive to their religious beliefs and fear the consequences for their children being exposed to it. (The same goes for DOMA at the Federal level).

People may not understand the similarities between the fight for gay and lesbian rights in the US and the uprising in Iran, and certainly what is happening in Iran affects a greater percentage of people much more profoundly, but religious oppression is religious oppression and a true secular government should accomodate the needs of all the people without forcing them to subscribe to a singular hardline religious ideology.

[Festivito]

7. There are plenty of people wanting to block Dems from Christian voters.

Sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not.

I'm tired of the self-righteousness of this type of atheistic mindset, let alone being continually hurt by it in elections.

[AntiFascist]

8. The structure of the Catholic church...

is not unlike that of the Iranian theocratic regime. Pope = Supreme Leader.

[Festivito]

10. Impertinent, incorrect, and thereby inept. /nt

[AntiFascist]

11. When the Pope tells US Catholics....

not to vote for Kerry, don't you think this had some effect on Bush winning the 2004 presidential election? It is not impertinent in that the Pope has undue influence on US democracy. This should not be legislated against, but it can certainly be educated against.

[Festivito]

12. Educate away. Just try to get it right.

A butterfly's wings in Africa can be said to have that effect.

A few zealots follow papal edicts to the letter. So what. Some people think their Napoleon. So what. You keep free associating in a manner barely tangential to a previous comment. So what.

Some may be affected by the pope, some by Mandela. So, how would one destroy their free speech, and/or censor their words. Let me stop and say I'd advise against it. Hope you would too.

[AntiFascist]

14. That's why I said we should NOT legislate against it...

all we can hope for is to educate people based upon our views, and hope they see it the same way.

[Festivito]

16. Well, that was worthless.

[AntiFascist]

17. More than just a few people "follow papal edicts to the letter"....

if they can be made to understand that the Pope's power hierarchy depends upon the same sort of religion-based edict that one so appointed is God's representative on Earth (very similar to that of the Islamic Imam-based power structure) then one might begin to question whether they are not so disimilar.

[Festivito]

25. You won't rule against the not so dissimilar structure. Whoopy!

Or, are you trying to argue the word most in most people...?

[AntiFascist]

27. The similarity is really quite simple...

massively organized religions appoint leaders who have a divine purpose in speaking for God, or the prophets. They then become involved in democratic politics affecting who will lead the nation. The closed-minded, less educated, right-wing followers are among those who will blindly follow.

[Celtic Merlin]

13. I believe that Kerry won the Catholic vote in 2004.

And this type of "instruction" (as under-the-radar as they can make it) is most certainly NOT limited to the Catholic Church.

Religious leaders of ALL faiths seized upon John Kerry's openly-supportive stand on abortion and shoved it down the throats of millions of religion-based voters. These single-issue people are the worst. They'll seize on abortion, or guns, or immigration, or what-have-you as their reason for voting a certain way. Forget the idea of voting for the best candidate for the good of the nation, they vote based on one issue alone, and they receive their marching orders from their religious leaders.

I've seen it and heard it happen. I've spoken to clergy who scoff at the laws which bar them from directing their flock to vote for a particular candidate. They said things like, "And exactly WHO is going to turn me in?" and, "The feds will have to prove it first" and, "The IRS isn't going to bother with MY church." And they're exactly right.

While religion has a place in America, that place is most certainly NOT in our government. No matter which denomination of whatever religious belief it is, it's the wrong one with which to lead a nation or influence an election.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[struggle4progress]

21. The Pope never told US Catholics not to vote for Kerry. But I think you knew that

[AntiFascist]

28. I suppose it was the conservative US bishops who were doing the dirty work...

the Pope merely implied that being pro-choice could be automatic grounds for excommunication, as in the case of Mexican politicians.

[struggle4progress]

29. John Kerry Receives Communion at Papal Mass (2008)

Sen. John Kerry received communion at the Mass that Pope Benedict XVI celebrated today in Washington, The AP reports. That wouldn't normally be newsworthy - but for the fact that a huge controversy raged during the 2004 presidential campaign when a few bishops announced that they would deny the Eucharist to Kerry, a Catholic, because of his support for abortion rights ... http://pope-newsday.blogspot.com/2008/04/john-kerry-receives-communion-at-papal.html

[struggle4progress]

30. . Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio . Gives . John Kerry, Holy Communion (2006)

Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States Gives Pro-abortion Senator, John Kerry, Holy Communion
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2006/06/archbishop_piet.html

Catholics charge to live gospel, says U.S. capital’s new archbishop
By Agostino Bono and Richard Szczepanowski
6/23/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
... During his entrance procession, the archbishop shook hands with Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, seated side by side in the third row along the center aisle ... During the Mass, Kerry, who supports keeping abortion legal, received Communion in the hand from Archbishop Pietro Sambi, apostolic nuncio to the United States and Pope Benedict XVI's representative to the U.S. bishops. Archbishop Wuerl distributed Communion alongside the nuncio. Kerry was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, and during the election campaign several U.S. bishops said they would not give him Communion in their dioceses because of his stand on abortion ... http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20313

[struggle4progress]

31. So you misrepresent some jabber, from a few rightwing Bishops, as the view of the whole Church and

do not hesitate to put in the mouth of the Pope things he never said

It's fine with me if you aren't enthusiastic about Catholicism -- but don't make stuff up

[AntiFascist]

32. This goes to demonstrate the power that the Pope wields...

I have no doubt that moderate and liberal Catholics are capable of doing great things, but when the hierarchy of the Catholic church is used to reinforce right-wing political hardline ideology then I certainly will speak out about it enthusiastically.

By the same token, there are moderate mullahs in Iran who are trying to change their government from within, toward a more peaceful foreign policy.

[struggle4progress]

33. The Pope never told US Catholics not to vote for Kerry. But I think you knew that

[Djinn]

19. impertinent?

no more than someone questioning and/or rejecting your political beliefs.

They are JUST beliefs, religious ideas get no special exemption over any other beliefs.

[Festivito]

24. Okay, so it stands as I said. Impertinent.

Unless you're using political beliefs as religious beliefs intertwined with politics if argued one way, and purely political beliefs devoid of religious concern when argued from a different direction.

[Djinn]

35. what on earth are you talking about

You (seemed to) claim that it was impertinent to question someones religious beliefs, I said it isn't anymore impertinent than questioning/debating someone's political beliefs. Unless you view ALL political beliefs valid then I can only assume you give religious beliefs some special sanction which makes no logical sense.

[burning rain]

15. Not sure what you have in mind.

Elected Democrats certainly haven't embraced atheists; on the contrary, they've gone out of their way to recruit conspicuously religious candidates and generally show enthusiasm for religion.

[Festivito]

23. Are you refering to voters as recruits of elected Dems?

And, once elected, one hardly worries about the divisioning for the purpose of dividing the vote.

[burning rain]

26. I'm referring to the Democratic Party's practice,....

very noticeable the past several years, of recruiting candidates for public office who are very up-front about loving the Lord. As Howard Dean has said, "We're the party of faith!"

[struggle4progress]

22. The real oppression for most of the world's people is hunger and grinding poverty.

I doubt if anybody at DU supports theocracy, and of course in America the anti-theocrats have regularly won political fights -- though perhaps the troglodytes will be with us forever. I suspect almost everyone will be happy to oppose theocratic government, in principle and in practice

But the major issues that threaten human peace and even survival are not currently related to theocracy: they are matters such as environmental destruction of the planet, the unjust distribution of resources, and militarization