We all know there is conflict in the Middle East, but when this is brought up the majority of people make reference to the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not wrong although there is a lot more going on. Israel and Iran are a large scale conflict in the making, and one that needs to be watched. The situation is combustible to say the least.
First in Iran the president is an extremist proclaiming 'Death to Israel' in nation-wide, televised speeches, furthermore he denies that the holocaust ever even happened, he figures it was a sham, put on by the Jews. He says all of this based on his religious affiliation, does anybody else see something wrong with that? Can we allow international leaders to condone aggression based on theological differences? This man's name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he has won several elections in Iran based on his widespread support from the Iranian people. He has even hinted to another invasion of Israel by Muslims in Middle Eastern countries. To this extent can we call Iran a theocracy? Of course we can, above Ahmadinejad is the Ayatollah, a religious figure with a greater power than the president himself. Historically, have theocracies been generally successful? Generally speaking, no. Because, as Rousseau states, 'The Government must represent the general will of the people.' This needs to be true in any circumstance, or the government risks revolution. Upon the topic of revolution, one could argue that the 'Revolutionary Spirit' is very much alive in the Middle East, given the revolution in Egypt just days ago.
In Tehran, there are mass revolts chanting for 'Death to Khamenei', Khamenei being the Ayatollah. Rousseau states that if the people no longer support the government, the people must be able to depose it. Rousseau postulates these rules as a means to keep a government constantly reflective of the will of the people, to avoid tyranny.
So if there are revolts, in Tehran, this would seem to reflect that the agenda of the Ahmadinejad government has strayed from the needs and wants of the Iranian people. So to this extent, if this is the general desire of the people, is it upon the rest of the world to arbitrate and aid in the deposition of Ahmadinejad, or would that be simply an act of imperialism in the style of the cold-war USA? People of religious ideology and even some of atheist ideology agree that arbitration is something to be avoided, especially when there is religion or old tradition involved. To depose a theocracy is to depose a religiously inclined government and in turn to punish members of a certain faith; is this persecution?
In Islamic culture, women are frequently mistreated, and unfortunately so. Is the idea of 'who are we to judge them?' even applicable, is it morally right to make judgments against the religious tendencies and if necessary arbitrate? In terms of human wellbeing it is absolutely necessary of us to arbitrate on behalf of these women. Morals applied in the scientific sense tell us that being forced to wear the equivalent of a cloth bag in desert temperatures, is not helpful to a human body, and is actually detrimental, so if these women are being forced into wearing these garbs, it is in fact morally wrong? The truth is that we need to make these judgments; we need to break down this notion that tradition can overtake human wellbeing. There are stories of women who refuse to where their burqa being stoned or beaten to death. There are also stories of fathers being instructed to kill their daughters out of shame in the case that they are raped. Can we as a society that knows so much about human health, really accept this as being ok? Can we allow this to happen?
This brings me back to my question, is it morally acceptable for us to arbitrate in the case of a theocracy undergoing revolts? We need to question, what is more important; the religious qualities of a government we may need to arbitrate upon, or the wellbeing of its citizens. Government can be reconstructed by the citizens without third party arbitration, but what if the people lack the means to depose the government themselves? Does the maintenance of the integrity of the government supersede the happiness of the population? Rousseau contends that the will of the people must guide and have control over the actions of the government, this clearly outlines that the people are the power.
So, if the protests of the Iranian people are met with violence, and citizens are harmed or killed, what is our duty as a higher standing country on the moral landscape?
Ok, Has anybody seen this? As a warning; if you are not ok with watching disturbing footage, and this is disturbing DO NOT WATCH THIS.
Ok, to explain for anybody who didn't watch this. It involves US soldiers being engaged in the city, while two blocks away an Apache helicopter sees five men with guns. The helicopter engages and kills all the men, unbeknownst to the pilot or gunner there was a reporter with them, he is shot. Upon the soldiers arriving from blocks away to secure the scene, a van arrives; the Apache engages the van and destroys it and kills a man crawling away, also a reporter. In the van were two children, US soldier Ethan McCord wants to take the wounded kids to base, he is declined and the kids were sent to a Iraqi hospital, and when McCord wanted to speak with a therapist, he is told to "Get the sand out of his vagina" he then resigned from the army. McCord now speaks out against the US mission. This was released by wikileaks and the buzz was that the pilot and soldiers were insensitive. But this is war, is it necessarily an unexpected event, no. Things will happen, but people have varying opinions.
So this becomes a question of morality, were the men in the helicopter in the wrong? The US Armed Forces Rules of Engagement state:
The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm
This is to say that, because the men the Apache engaged had weapons, the helicopter had permission to engage them with lethal force. But was engaging the van proper? According to the Rules of Engagement: Yes. But morally, were the actions of the US forces proper or upright? This is where the question gets a little more heated. Morality is relative (meaning it is not black and white) but if it is relative, how do we tell if it is right or wrong? Also, is it at all possible to determine to what extent if any we apply our rules or morals set out by society, to Iraq and the actions of US soldiers? Morals were originally something created and carried out by religious bodies. One of the earliest forms of law is based off of Moses' 10 commandments. This raises the question, what is secular morality? What do us base secular morality off of?
One of the big questions when one compares religion and science is with regard to human morality and what kind of code we should live by. The original conception is that there is no direct link between science and morality. This wall is being broken down by new-age scientists and new-age thinkers. For example, Sam Harris. I will keep my opinion of Harris' other ideas to myself for the sake of neutrality but he does have some great ideas involving morality, specifically in his book: The Moral Landscape.
After hearing ideas like this one, it raises the question of morality again. And with regard to human wellbeing and general healthiness; it would seem the actions for the men in the helicopter were morally wrong. Actually I do not know if these men were wrong, what if the truck was packed with explosives and its intent was to kill soldiers, in that case; the helicopter would be rewarded for its actions. But what do you think?
Ok, so there's a revolution in Egypt, the prime minister is stepping down. But I don't feel like talking about that, because it's all i hear about; Egypt! Egypt! You'd think that it's the first revolution ever. There are more things going on in the world, Did you know people are eating pygmys in The Congo? did you know Sudan wants to break into two countries? How about anarchists in Greece? But more interesting than all of that is Romania...
So. Romania, did you know that 'witches' in Romania are being recognized as a taxable employment? The job entails performing palm-readings (which is actually taxed in Canada) and other acts of witchcraft including viewing the future. This seems a little absurd right? That you could go into the growing field of witchcraft, maybe open up your own little tent to read palms in or see the future? This begs the question: What government in their right mind allows this? Romania id 58rd in the Quality of Life index, goven that there are 195 countries in the world, putting Romania just outside of the top 25% in the world, which is by no means a poor living. Furthermore, the government is reserving the right to fine these 'witches' for improper prophecy and even reserve the right to imprison them. Since when are we as a society welcoming the supernatural notion of witches back into the question? Are we going to start burning them at the stake again? This was done by the Romanian government to try to raise tax funds out of the practically unemployed, but I thought we were moving toward a more secular-focused society, but apparanty im wrong, apparantly if we are in need of money we can bring back supernatural medival notions, I suppose i need to accept their ideology as something to be respected because I am not in support of religious intolerance, but let's be honest, how long before Romania starts schooling witches? Hogwarts?
To begin, I am an atheist. The atheist movement came with the modern discovery of how science works, and how it contradicted church doctrine. Now there are countries like Sweden who boast a population of 80% plus, being atheist. I was born into a Christian family and had a Christian-ish upbringing (That being said, when i reached a certain age, church became optional). Now i live in Orillia, a city that has more churches per capita than is likely healthy for a society that is having a university set up campus in. Throughout my years here I have been indoctrinated and had Christian ideals shoved in my face by locals throughout the whole city. But one may ask what is the purpose of writing this blog, simply put, i am going to try to critique the society i live in from a standpoint to promote the coexistence of atheists and the other religious sects in the city. I came to atheism from years of general unfounded non-belief, years later I now realize that the existence of god comes down to a question of logical proof, and that in logic you will never be called upon to prove a negative. In this blog I will endeavour to look at issues that come up in my life and I will talk about them from an atheistic point of view, I'm open to discussion and criticism.
