Faramarz's Latest Rambling

captain

There are so many different ways of discussing issues... yes?  When you discuss a difference of opinion with one you consider a "peer", the discussion IS civilized.  When the attitude of the opponent is dismissive and rude, you tend to take that attitude as well.  Before you know it, you're rolling around in the mud with a pig.  I've seen examples of both.  :-)  There are some individuals who express themselves with respect.  Respect for themselves AND their opponents.  There are others who are simply vulgar.  And yet others who stroke their self-importance with condescension and dismissiveness.  It's a very interesting collage.  LOL. 

sepas

Mr's Anvar, che khabar

My exact points gentlemen. Foundation of any democratic society is equality, freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of  religion. When one is eliminated then it becomes a tyranny and not a democracy.

Religion in any form or shape is part of fabric of societies for as long as human history goes. Religion, when used as a political ideology, have had disastrous consequences, from atrocities committed by the catholic church  during the dark ages to present day Iran.

A democracy can flourish only when its fundamental beliefs are adhered to and only when religion is clearly and decisively separated from politics and governance of the nation. This is by no means to say that religion should disappear from the public views and only be limited to ones private home. 

-YT 

P/S che khabar e, I like to take this opportunity to thank you for your civility in your debates.

Fateh agha

At least you clarified your comment. :-)  So I feel free in 100% disagreeing with you.  Not the separation of church and state.  No argument there.  But to banish religion to home?  No.  I'm sorry but that's where I draw the line.  That is EXACTLY the sort of suppression that we are fighting right now.  Confining religion to your home is nothing more than a denial of the right to exist.  We differ on this point.  So be it.  :-) 

Anvar summed it up exactly:   Hoping for the day when religious entities tend to the spiritual needs and governmental entities tend to the civil needs of the people.

A Method to a Goal

*Ali P.* - (I assume that, at least partially, you included me in your question.)

Your point is absolutely valid that an elected person or a civil servant ought not to check their religious views at the door.  In my opinion, the constitution and civil laws of a country should not be based on any religion.  These laws must protect and be applied equally to all citizens or residents of a country.  At the same time, people should be free to choose any religion or even no religion at all, and practice their beliefs freely.  A person’s religion, or lack thereof, should not be a factor in their finding employment, admittance to schools, or enjoying any other amenities. 

The goal maybe separation of religion/state, as you wrote, and if religion is separated from politics (art and science of governing), then perhaps the goal can be achieved.  

Anvar

Seperation of religion/state or religion/politics?

I don't know if you could ever seperate religion and politics. In a democracy - if this is what you are suggesting- a religeous man, or woman, can run for office, and get elected. It won't be feasable, nor democratic, to ask him to check his religious views at the door.

We could, however, set up the system, so the state neither promotes, nor hinders, any one religion over another, like what the U.S. Constitution dictates.

Words Have Meanings

*Faramarz_Fateh* - I agree with the essence of what you’re suggesting that politics & religion must be kept separated. 

I regret that you might have encountered some “crazy and fanatic” Bahai’s.  I must, however, take exception to your using of the word “proselytize” which we are strongly discouraged to do.  Words have meanings and connotations. Proselytizing, which is the act of attempting to convert people, has a negative connotation that is commonly used to describe attempts to forcefully convert people. Perhaps, you still meant to use it in that context which, of course, you are free to do.  Chances are that even this attempt to share my viewpoint will be labeled, by some, as an attempt to proselytize.

I personally don’t mind any houses of worship anywhere (regardless of name or religious affiliation), as long as politics and other nefarious activities are kept out of them.

Hoping for the day when religious entities tend to the spiritual needs and governmental entities tend to the civil needs of the people.

Anvar

Clarification

There should absolutely be religous freedom in Iran as well as all other countries on the planet. I do not advocate oppression of organized religion or its practitionaires.

What I am advocating is practice of religion in one's home.  Religion is a private matter.

Historically, in the past hundreds of years, in Iran and all other Islamic countries Mosques have been centers of political activity and unrest as well as teachingcenters of brain washing.  Same goes with most Christain churches.

I cannot talk about "Aatashkadeh" because I have never been in one or Jewsih temples.  I have been in Bahai centers in many cities and have never seen evidence of political activity or hate speech although to some degree Bahais do have crazy and fanatic people who proslitize too much .

Nevertheless, I do not like to see Bahai centers cropped up in all town and cities either. 

Bottom line, banish religion to homes.  Take action so religion is never given any political power.  Mix of religion and politics is deadly. 

Sad how we let actions of

Sad how we let actions of few fill our hearts with so much hate for entire nation.

A powerful statement and one which would apply to many other scenarios as well, wouldn't you say?  :-)

I don't blame the "religion" for any atrocity committed by man.  I had not gotten the impression that Fateh agha did either.  I hope not because I believe him to be a rather fair person whose views are not held by some of the more rigid members of this site.   And I think that is exactly the problem in Iran, the rigid and fixed idealogy expressed by some.

I can't express strongly enough my belief in your last comment either.

"Freedom of religion"

sepas

che khabar e Jan

In the absence of reply from Mr. Fateh, I think he is only proposing closing of mosques[cesspools as he puts it].

He is good with letting churches, synagogues and Atashkadeh's operate since they are ok with him. ;-)

Sad how we let actions of few fill our hearts with so much hate for entire nation. Separation of religion and politics has nothing to do with closing mosques and forcing people to stop practicing what they believe in. Last I checked it is called freedom of religion.

-YT 

While I understand and

While I understand and probably agree with you in theory, I absolutely disagree with your "conditions".  Religion should be separate from politics.  There is no doubt about that.  But "pushed to the background"?  Hidden away in homes?  You're promoting exactly what the IRI is doing now, limiting people's freedoms of speech and religion.  To even suggest that there should be no mosques, or churches, or synagogues is, well, beyond me.

This is disappointing to hear from you. Although a minimal anonymous poster before, I've read your stuff and I've liked it alot.

:-(

Mr. Fateh

How about churches, synagogues and Atashkadeh's? Are you going to shut them down as well? Or is it only Mosques?

-YT 

I Agree!

We must remove all religious holidays from Iranian calendar since Iran composed of multi religions.  In a free IRAN in future soon religions would be a personal trait.  I am very sure, majority of Iranians would depart from Islam in a free Iran.  I promise you the statistic in future would indicate Iran not as a moslem country.

Payandeh Iran & Iranians

Down with IRI, His supporters