Secular @ MindSay

As I have mentioned before, my last month in Jordan is being spent doing research on the relationship between Jordan’s main Islamist party, the Islamic Action Front, and the Hashemite monarchy.  The bulk of my research is being done through interviews.  So far I have interviewed various elites that range from the country’s former foreign minister, a few journalists, and the head of the country’s main secular party; however, today I went straight to the source of my research as I engaged in interviews today at the offices of both Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Action Front, which is more or less the political wing of the Brotherhood.

 

I was both very excited and very intimidated by this occasion, for while I know that being an Islamist does not necessarily make one a terrorist by any means, I still had the idea going into my head that I was going into the offices of the political movement that the United States deems as the world’s greatest post-Cold War threat.

 

My first meeting was in the office of the Muslim Brotherhood, and was actually not an interview.  Rather it was an informational meeting where I was to be screened by the head of the organization’s information department.  My first encounter with a member of the party did not help to calm my nerves as I was confronted by a guard of the organization interrogating me about my business with the organization; however, was I gave him my student ID he became much more amicable.

 

As I walked up the stairs of the building (the organization’s headquarters are in the same building of the Islamic hospital that they run) I was a little shaken by the environment.  Not only were the walls of the organization covered by posters glorifying ideas and people that were viewed as entirely extremist in the United States, but also the office was very chaotic and filled with many people as a large press conference had just finished.

 

Once I walked into the office I was greeted by Yehya Shaqra, a very friendly man in his late 60’s with whom I had set my appointment up with the day before.  My meeting with him went very well as he approved my questions and agreed to set up an interview for me.  In addition, he also gave me many internal IAF documents that would further aid me in my research.  Following this meeting, I headed to the office of the Islamic Action Front, which was unsurprisingly only a short walk away.

 

At the Islamic Action Front headquarters, I had an interview with the party’s vice president, Dr. Ruhayl Gharaibeh.  Compared to the Muslim’s Brotherhood’s, this office was much more spartan and quiet.  There were a few posters here and there, but those were the only main decorations in the office space.  Expectedly, my interview with Dr. Gharaibeh was very interesting.  I asked him many questions regarding political Islam that had always been in the back of my mind.  For instance I questioned him about whether there is any inherent economic policy in political Islam.  He responded that the party believed Jordan should follow more traditional Arab models rather than privatization being set forth by the International Monetary Fund.

 

Either way, it was weird to think that I was speaking with an Islamist.  With a normal looking beard, dressed in a Western style suit, Dr. Ruhayl appeared like any other politician.  After my meetings today, I saw that while political Islam is an ideology that I certainly do not agree with, I did learn that it is a movement that can be worked with.

While I understand that the majority of my fellow American citizens disapprove of my heathen ways, I do not wish to write only for those who share my particular perspective.  I believe that rational thinking and critical consideration can lead to greater cooperation and a "more perfect Union".  So, while recently mulling over complaints and debates concerning the separation of church and state and the presence or absence of religious ideology in our nation's origin and founding documents, I thought to myself, "what would Jesus do?"  Thus, I have produced the parable of the fair king.

 

There was once a kingdom within which lay, at opposite ends two great cities.  It had long been the tradition that each king, upon ascension, would choose one of the two cities to be his residence and it follows, the powers and priveleges that associate with the center of political power.  Whichever city was chosen, it always sparked animosity in the other and caused strife between the two.  Sometimes, the strife would lead to violence, bringing the entire kingdom to the brink of civil war.  It came to pass that when the king was old and sick, and his son was preparing to succeed him, the two cities began earnestly trying to know the prince's mind and seek his favor so that he might choose their city for his throne. 

 

The prince kept to himself and was wise, considering all points before coming to his decision.  Upon his father's death, the new king called forth his scribes and messangers to proclaim the new seat of his reign.  All were shocked when the king announced that he would not choose either city.  Instead, he would declare his court to be in the countryside near the midpoint between the two great cities.  The king went on to explain to those gathered that this would ensure fair access to representatives from both cities and even provide an opportunity for the oft forgotten rural farmers who did not live near either city.  There was some concern about the king's decision.  A few thought that the farmers should not be able to petition the king, but the king told all that they are no less subjects than the city-dwellers, since both country and city are within the domain of the kingdom.  Most of those gathered praised the king's decision and his wisdom, celebrating him as a fair king.  Those in the cities who were hopeful of having the advantage of the king's presence were able to accept the absence of the king because their hatred of their rival and fear that the king may have chosen to reside within their enemy's walls made them see the necessity of such a situation. 

 

The king was heralded for most of his life.  But, as the years passed, the king appeared before his subjects less and less.  He had become weak and frail with age.  And the memory of the hatred between the two cities faded while the generations passed.  Soon, those in the cities began complaining loudly that the old king had destroyed the tradition of the kingdom and lessened its glory.  Voices in each city now spoke out saying that if the court remained in the country it would be horrible for the kingdom.  Since, they said, the king did not say that he disliked the cities, and the king never showed any preference for the petitions of the folks from the country over those from the folks who came from cities, it can be reasoned that the intent of the king was not to start a long standing tradition of equal access, but instead was just trying to encourage the cities to be more civil toward one another.  Still more argued that the king never intended the country folk to have the amount of access to petition that they had gained because the king had resided amongst them.  In fact, a great deal of resentment toward the rural subjects had festered within the cities.  They argued that the country folk were few and poor and it was the cities that filled the kingdom's treasuries and armories.  Some even reasoned that the rural people were not equal subjects.

 

And so, after the death of the fair king, the people of the cities pressed the heir, finally convincing him to move his court to one of the cities.  When he did so, the animosity felt before soon surfaced and the fate of the kingdom was sealed.  Whether torn apart completely through civil conflict or weakened so it fell to foreign invaders, the kingdom was doomed because it failed to have the vision of the fair king.

 

If you take the king in the countryside as secular government, I think the ideas behind the story are fairly apparent.  The king did not place his court in the countryside because he favored the rural people over the city people.  He placed it there so that the kingdom could have peace between the cities.  Any benefits derived from this decision by the country people are mostly a side-effect of the solution, but a side-effect which has moral grounding since it does provide more equality to the oft neglected rural residents of the kingdom. 

 

Remember, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.  Peace can bring complacency and arrogance.  The secular basis for our constitution was after bloody religious conflicts between protestants and catholics in England and all over Europe.  Such conflicst still continue today.  These examples are intra-faith conflicts.  How much worse are the interfaith conflicts? Keeping the religious dog out of the political hunt is the only way to maintain civility, equality, and freedom.  Baptism, communion, and religious bigotry are not foundational principles of our nation.  They are contrary to the American ideal.  A christian nation would not be America.  A nation in which particular religious values have precedence by virtue of their religious origins would not be America.  Pressing specific religious and moral views into the domain of the state will destroy America, conceptually if not physically.

 

Be a Patriot.  Fight religious subversion of American values.  Defend Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All.

 

The Southern Fried Skeptic

 

 

It's almost here.  Election day.  The moment of truth...errr..scratch that. 

For those freethinkers out there, the Secular Coalition of America has a secular scorecard for congress, similar to the scorecards issued by religious organizations.  You can find it here.

You know, it seems that Secular America often aligns with Progressive America.  This is not to say that they are unified or one in the same.  Far from it, despite what that bastion of intellectual credibility, Bill O'Reilly, may think.  I saw Bill Clinton campaigning for Ford in Tennessee this weekend on C-Span, and I think he did use a term that would serve to identify the umbrella which so often encompasses Secularists and Progressives.  The term was, the "Stop and Think Crowd".  That's a good description. 

Look, there are secular progressives, but there are also progressives who are Christian.  The Progressives have more than their share of "New Age" quackery as well.  That's why someone like Dawkins gets so much heat for taking a solid stand.  He's going to catch it from Traditionalists as well as Progressives.  To be a good skeptic, the motto must be to follow the truth, as revealed through scientific inquiry, wherever it may lead.  Sometimes that puts us at odds with most of the people around us. Still,  behind such a doctrine is rational, not ideological thought.  And it seems more often than not that the democrats are less ideological and therefore more often aligned with the secular elements in society.

That, I believe, is the main reason behind any correllation with secularists and democrats.  Except for the whacky atheists who are libertarians.  They should really try to think a little harder.

Til Next Time...

I was really impressed with the article on Barak Obama in the current issue of Time magazine.  I have had an eye for Obama since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  I can only recall 3 speeches that caused my hair to stand on end when I first heard them.  Kennedy's inaugural address, Dr. King's "I have a dream", and Obama's speech from that event.  Still, I didn't know much about his specific beliefs or, more importantly, his ability to reason and think critically.  While it seems that most non-believers seem to favor more ideas associated with Democrats, it does not follow that I or any other secular American can support Democratic candidates blindly.  Many, including Nancy Pelosi who supports creating a faith based agenda for Democrats, do not either want our support or are not courageous enough to stand up for our place in America.  After reading an excerpt from Obama's new book, The Audacity of Hope published in Time along with the article, I have hope that Obama, while admitting to being baptised as a Christian despite secular parents and grandparents, will have respect and support for Secular America and Scientific Reality.  Consider the following quotes from the excerpt of his book in Time.

"...Democrats, meanwhile, are scrambling to "get religion," even as a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular in orientation, and fears- rightly, no doubt- that the agenda of an assertively Christian nation may not make room for them or their life choices."

" It was because of these newfound understandings- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking,...that I was able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."

"Of course organized religion doesn't have a monopoly on virtue, and one not need be religious to make moral claims or appeal to a common good."

"What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.  It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason."

When he discussed his daughter questioning him about death and what is beyond, his words, clearly raw and not politically calculated, really struck me-

" I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang."

There are some less favorable points, but Obama, in my opinion, is the most thoughtful, honest politician I have witnessed since I became interested in the political process.

Welcome to the opening entry of the SecularSouth blog.  I am the Southern Fried Skeptic.  I am authentically southern, having spent most of my life among the peanut and cotton fields of rural south Georgia. I am opinionated, educated, alienated, and sometimes intoxicated.  I am a progressive, secular skeptic who believes firmly in the authenticity and applicability of a scientific worldview.  My plan is to make this blog a service to myself and others. For myself, it will be a much needed outlet for frustration with the amount of ignorance and nonsense I observe in our misguided species and for others it will be a resource for information about events and news associated with science, politics, and whatever happens to pop into my (admittedly) scattered mind.  You don't have to agree with my opinions, but disagreement should be backed with rational thinking.  Otherwise you're just wasting time.  If you disagree with facts I present, then please speak up.  Such disagreement will be appreciated if evidence shows that  I am more misguided than usual.

More substance to come soon.

The Southern Fried Skeptic