We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Samizdata slogan of the day

· Slogans & Quotations

Long live freedom and Secularism
– From the Movement of Iranian Students, who are right now the fighting forces of ignorance and darkness.

November 16th, 2002 |

9 comments to Samizdata slogan of the day

  • Mark G
    November 16, 2002 at 4:30 pm

    Let’s just not forget that secularism can also be an intolerant, backwards force.

    The secularist Turkish army regard themselves as the ‘modernising’ guardians of Ataturk’s post-Ottoman 1920s reforms, and as recently as the mid-90s overturned a legitimate, democratically-elected Turkish government of Islamicists. That’s not what counts as modern for me, particularly not army officers torturing Muslim activists.

    The current carnage in Algeria dates most recently from an army refusal to allow another Islamic party, democratically elected by Algerian voters, to come into government.

    There are religious bigots and zealots and also moderate, sophisticated people who are religious. Likewise, there are anti-religious bigots and zealots and also moderate, sophisticated people who are non-religious or atheist.

  • Philip Chaston
    November 16, 2002 at 4:37 pm

    The ‘Movement of Iranian Student’ sounds like a medical problem.

  • Perry de Havilland
    November 16, 2002 at 4:42 pm

    Democratically sanctified tyranny is still tyranny, Mark. Just because a would-be government of Islamists in Turkey or Algeria are elected does not make them ‘legitimate’. I regard both coups as entirely reasonable in essence even if not in execution.

    Having a secular state cannot not guarantee liberty, that is for sure, but having a religious state does indeed guarantee tyranny.

  • Mark G.
    November 16, 2002 at 7:55 pm

    Hmmm – “…having a religious state does indeed guarantee tyranny”. I’ll have to think about that, Perry! Not sure what I reckon there.

    I’m fully with you that democracy is not the highest liberty, but only one of a group of liberties. It’s not sacrosanct on its own, I agree. But overturning an election is a kind of tyranny too, isn’t it? I’m not sure how terrible [or how much more terrible] those Islamicist governments that were not allowed to happen in Algeria and Turkey would have been, compared to the military governments that did happen. I’d have to see a strong case that other liberties were saved and strengthened by those military coups.

    I did briefly know a Turkish [secularist, as it happens] political scientist in London who was tortured by a Turkish military government when he was a student in the 70s. Presumably the torturers thought they were doing the right thing at the time.

    My guess would be that most, though not all, tyrannies believe they are actually preventing tyranny rather than promoting it.

  • Alan K. Henderson
    November 16, 2002 at 11:49 pm

    “[T]he care of souls does not belong to the magistrate.” – John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration

    The award-winning essayist (well, my personal award, anyway) raised a point that is missed by many: that state religion grants illegitimate authority to the State over the church.

    In any country with a nationalized religion, the partner that holds the sword – the State – is always the senior partner, and if such a State funtions as an actual theocracy as in Iran, the government is the ultimate arbiter of Scripture. Such governments will ultimately treat Scripture as a malleable “living and breathing document” to be conformed to the goals of the State. The religion is perverted, and those who strive to adhere to its original tenets risk government reprisal.

    Iranian totalitarianism robs religious freedom not only from Christians, Jews, and Ba’hais but also from Muslims. Hopefully the Movement of Iranian Students will be more successful than the Chinese students who descended on Tianenmen Square.

  • Michael Wagner
    November 17, 2002 at 5:48 pm

    To the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime. Where is the left’s outrage at the repression of free speech by the Iranian fascists?

  • Lucas Wiman
    November 17, 2002 at 9:48 pm

    Michael: I found this at Human Rights Watch’s website. I found a fair amount of stuff about Iran on Amnesty International’s website, but not about the professor sentenced to death. They’ll probably have a press release soon. I don’t really consider these organizations leftist, but most people here seem to.

    As for leftists like Noam Chomsky, they’re probably not real fond of this, but would prefer to talk about Israel and Turkey. That makes a bit of sense. They like to complain at the U.S. government, and the U.S. government can’t really do very much about Iran. The U.S. does have a lot of influence with Israel and Turkey, so that’s what they complain about.

    The other possibility for Chomsky’s response is that he would blame this all on the Shah (and then by extension the U.S.). Or perhaps he would complain about religious fundamentalism, then launch into a tirade about how fundamentalist the U.S. is.

  • Michael Wagner
    November 18, 2002 at 4:14 am

    Lucas: That they would only talk about it if it could be used against the US is the point. The dogs didn’t bark in the night because they’re friends with the villian.

  • Lucas Wiman
    November 18, 2002 at 6:59 pm

    I don’t think that Chomsky and his ilk are friends of middle eastern islamists or faschists (perhaps in the “enemy of my enemy” sense, but not in the literal sense). Chomsky has spoken out a fair amount against Saddam’s regime in Iraq, for example. It is almost invariably in connection with a “the U.S. supported him, and he’s so bad” sort of context, though. He doesn’t like Iraq, though he dislikes the U.S. a whole lot more.

«  
  »