Muslims Not Capable of Secular Government?

Throughout the conflict in Iraq, I've heard it claimed that Muslims aren't capable of a secular government - that their culture and religion would never permit it. Many people seem to forget or be unaware of Turkey. This is a nation that is about 95% Muslim, yet they have a completely secular government. The Turkish government goes even further than the U.S. government in not allowing religious dress in public buildings. This law has apparently been upheld in the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate"[1]. Given France's recent move to disallow the Muslim head dress in public schools that's not surprising.

This brand of 'enforced secularism' is not something I find proper. In the U.S., anyone can wear the garments and symbols of their faith. The idea that the government could tell them not to would seem absurd and a violation of personal liberty to most Americans. The European system seems to take the perspective that the Government should be telling religious people 'you can't bring your religious stuff in here' and so on. Meanwhile, the approach of the U.S. government is that secular government is a government that is restricting itself - not restricting citizens. For instance, when the U.S. supreme court ruled against school prayer, the ruling was that government employees may not lead the students in prayer or use school property to conduct it. Students, however, are perfectly free to pray when and how they wish. The overall philosophy is a 'hands off' restriction on the government. In Europe, it seems to be more of a 'hands on' active secularizing of the people through intrusive restrictions. I find this harmful to personal liberty.

In any case, this more extreme European secularism is strongly in place in Turkey, and has been since 1923. According to a recent AP article, About two weeks ago, about 300,000 Turks (presumably many of them Muslim) staged a massive protest against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his pro-Islamic agenda. Today about 100,000 protested. The protesters claimed his faction wanted "to drag Turkey to the dark ages". They also disapprove of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, living in the palace while wearing traditional Muslim dress.

I would conditionally tend to think that both democracy and secular government are fully within the ability (and desire) of all human beings, including Muslims. However, when a nation doesn't have the past tradition of it like Turkey, it can be a long uphill climb. Ideally, not something that can (or should) be imposed from a foreign force, as is the attempted case in Iraq. But regardless of other immense problems with the Iraq war, I must at least say that claims Muslim populations are incapable, in principle, of secular government seem greatly inaccurate.

Humanist Ritual

A reader has asked recently about Humanist rituals:

I'd be interested in hearing your take on creating humanist rituals. There seems to be an innate human need to create ceremonies and do things that have a feeling of "sacred space".

This was actually the topic of the day at the most recent session of my Humanist Contemplatives Club. A complete report of our conclusions on this can be read on our Club's journal (link HERE), but I've repeated the core part of the summary here...

1) We acknowledge that Humanists already engage in many rituals. These include various meetups, weddings, funuerals, baby namings, etc.

2) There seems to be a major distinction between rituals, based on why they are conducted. In one sense, you have the 'superstitious ritual' in which the practitioner believes these acts to be accomplishing something disconnected from the typical natural cause-and-effect we know of empirically. Examples include rain dances and prayer. The second sense of ritual is the 'symbolic ritual' in which the practitioner is conducting an activity in order to symbolize a concept. These rituals are designed to create a sense of solemnity, help us adjust our mindset and focus on the reasons behind the ritual, cement social interactions, and mark special events or notions. It was concluded quite easily that Humanist ritual must be exlusive to this latter form.

3) Future Humanist rituals should take advantage of the rich cultural lineage behind it. This includes elements of art, music, poetry, literature, and other elements by past Humanists or humanistic artists and thinkers. This should bring in a sense of tradition such that the ritual does not feel extraneous or contrived.

4) Rituals should be 'multisensory' experiences. They should tap as many of our senses as possible; having visual, audial, olfactory, and possibly tactile elements. Internally, they should tap both the intellect as well as the emotional, intuitive, and imaginative.

It was also mentioned that science fiction can be an inspiration for creative ideas. At the same time, a Humanist ritual must be something with real functional purpose - even if merely social or emotional - or else it will seem contrived.

Diane Mobley Strain 1950-2007

My mother, Diane Mobley Strain, died on the first day of spring; March 21, 2007. Her lungs were inhibited by pulmonary fibrosis (also called interstitial lung disease) - an illness which gets progressively worse over time, until eventually the victim can't get enough oxygen. It's cause was never clearly established since ILD can have a wide variety of both biological and environmental causes.

For a time, she was sleeping with an oxygen tube at home and riding a scooter around since any extended walking would leave her coughing and short of breath. One day, she fell and severely broke her shoulder. She had to have surgery which included taking a piece of bone from her hip to rebuild the shattered shoulder area. However, the hip became infected and she had to then undergo a number of other surgeries to clean out the wound. Over this time, she was bedridden and became weakened. This, plus the anesthesia and general stress of the procedures accelerated her ILD to a critical point.

As she wished, she was asleep under the influence of pain killers once she had to have a ventilator. It was hoped that her body could get enough oxygen and clear out the CO2, but there simply wasn't enough lung tissue left for her to recover. With her family and closest friends around her bed, holding her hands, she passed away without any discomfort or suffering.

But the important thing about my mother is not how she died - rather, how she lived. She was many things to many people, but of course, my comments will focus on what she was to me as a mother. My earliest memory of her is sitting with me at the dining room table, struggling through my homework. As a child I'm told I was difficult because, although I wasn't mean or disrespectful, I had a tendency to daydream. This meant I had trouble in elementary school and it was very frustrating getting me to concentrate on my homework. Of course, I was completely incapable of appreciating her efforts at the time but she sat with me constantly, making sure I learned. In her unending attention (what a child would think of as strictness), she handed over all of her time to teach me about responsibility and give me a sense of living by principles.

But what was really rare about her was her combination of principled responsibility with incredible love, compassion, and sacrifice. She demanded a lot from others, but she always gave more than she got from the world.

She not only sacrificed her time, but she and my father sacrificed their money at a time when money was scarce in the family. This included things like sending me to private school to get me over my school difficulties, but it also included giving my brother and I the best childhood they could. They'd make huge sacrifices to provide special Christmas gifts for us like large high priced toys and computers - things most children from higher income families would be lucky to get.

My mother's compassion extended to those outside our immediate family as well. My parents were always taking extended family and friends into their house when they fell on hard times or needed support. In addition, she worked with my father in their churches to help feed, clothe, and provide companionship to the poor and homeless without making any demands of them.

I wasn't present, but my father told me about a time when he saw her admiring a very nice (and expensive) coat. She was surprised and thrilled when he unexpectedly bought it for her. It was cold that day so she put it on and they went out to run some errands for the church. Arriving at the home of a poor woman to bring her some things, they saw her sitting on the front steps, shivering. She had no money for heating and no coat. My mother instantly took hers and put it around the woman. She could see it looked like a very nice new coat and said, "I can't take this". My mother replied, "This old thing? I was about to throw it out anyway" and left her with it.

We also had a lot of good times. My mother could really appreciate and enjoy special times with the family and going to do fun things. She really glowed when she talked about them and I think enjoying things in life is part of what makes a person able to sacrifice where important and give where needed.

As I look over pictures of her I've found some we took when we were visiting Los Angeles. A relative knew one of the guards at Paramount Studios so we were fortunate to get to tour the studio where they were filming Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have a picture of myself sitting in Captain Picard's chair, with my parents sitting in the chairs on either side. We also got to see the Cheers set and took a picture of all of us standing behind the bar holding up glasses. In all of these photos, including others from Christmas time and so on, I've noticed something. She always had a big smile, but it wasn't the same as mine. I could see in her face that it wasn't merely the event, or the trip, or seeing these things that was making her smile - it was that she was happy for us - and happy that we were having fun together.

From the time I was born (actually before) to the day she died, for 35 years, her commitment to being the best mother she could be was absolutely unwavering. At one point as a teenager, when my brother was having problems, my mother told him that there was nothing he could do that would ever cause her to abandon or give up on him, and he says that knowing this was a point that saved him. Throughout our lives, her priorities were never confused. Her love was like the firmament of stars in our universe - it was as dependable as the sun's rising.

My mother's conscious experience in life has ended, but she has made an impact on her world and left it a better place than she found it. She and my father have made my brother and I what we are today, and her life has given inspiration and example to others, having subtle and far reaching effects beyond what we will ever fully realize. Through our experiences with her, she has passed on a part of who she was so that we may go on consciously experiencing the world through her eyes when we keep her in our thoughts. This is the best way we can honor her. She once carried me inside her, and I'll carry her inside me the rest of my life.

Kurt Vonnegut Dies

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007, American Humanist Association Honorary President and Legendary Writer Kurt Vonnegut died. The story was reported by AP and the Yahoo news article can be read by clicking HERE. If that link has expired, I have reposted the article on my philosophy site HERE.

Update, April 13,2007: The American Humanist Association also has an article, "Humanist President Kurt Vonnegut Mourned": LINK HERE.

Parenting Beyond Belief

Editor Dale McGowan has sent me a notice about a new book coming out soon. I get a few requests to feature things on my blog from time to time, and don't always respond. I have also had contact in person and online with many people looking for advice on parenting without religion, so I've decided to pass this along. Mr. McGowan writes:

I'm getting the word out to freethought blogs about a forthcoming book I've edited titled Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, which is headed for an April launch. An excerpt from the book flap:

"Parenting Beyond Belief is a book for loving and thoughtful parents who wish to raise their children without religion. There are scores of books available for religious parents. Now there's one for the rest of us. Includes essays by Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Penn Jillette, Mark Twain, Dr. Jean Mercer, Dr. Donald B. Ardell, Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons, and over twenty-five other doctors, educators, psychologists, and secular parents."

The book's website www.ParentingBeyondBelief.com includes an FAQ, contributor bios, excerpts, and a fledgling discussion forum.

Pace's Morality

You may have read recently that the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, has said that homosexuality is immoral and therefore the military should not allow gays to serve openly. What ever happen to the claims about it destroying unit cohesiveness? I thought that was the rationale? I suppose someone finally spilled the beans on the real thinking behind this policy - not much to our surprise I think.

According to a recent AP article, Pace compared homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral. He said, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." General Pace is probably a good man and means well according to his upbringing, but it seems his upbringing wasn't sufficient in the area of ethics.

When General Pace said the U.S. was not well served by a policy saying it is OK to be immoral "in any way", he sets up a condition that is impossible to fulfill. This, because there are many 'ways' in which things can be said to be immoral or not, and many opinions regarding morality. Some people believe that eating pork is immoral. Does the military serve pork in its lunch lines? And what about allowing Wiccan chaplains on base - something the army is doing which evangelical Christians consider highly immoral, if not blasphemous. Then there's that thing about all the killing, which pure pacifists would find immoral under any conditions.

What if I believe that it is immoral to oppress or ostracize people simply because of which consenting adults they choose to have intimate relationships with? Well, he might say, I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Pace's morality is one of simplistic authoritarianism: a matter of obedience to a code etched in stone. This is a cheap immature stand-in for real ethical understanding that so many people are stuck in. This is why his notion of what is immoral includes victimless actions between consenting adults and why he can't see the distinction between homosexuality and adultery, where there is a person who is being betrayed and harmed. Morality is not about following dictates under threat of punishment (eternal or otherwise) - it is about human beings working together, living and acting responsibly and compassionately toward one another for their own wellbeing and the betterment of all.

Pace's notion of morality is not only primitive and misguided, but it is woefully insufficient for dealing with a modern diverse society with a variety of specific religious beliefs. Pace is not an instructor at a private school or the head of a private company - he is an official in a government that is the property of all of the people who pay his salary: straights, gays, men, women, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Humanists, Wiccans, and more.

Note, for example, Pace's analogy of homosexuality to adultery. Pace said he "supports the don't ask, don't tell policy" where gays are allowed to serve if they keep their homosexuality private. Can you imagine the military having a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy about adultery? Can you imagine the chairman saying that, as long as they keep their adultery secret they can serve in the military? This points out the hypocrisy such a ridiculous ethical system encourages.

Pace finds himself in a precarious position within a world that is rapidly changing around him. Such a simplistic childlike notion of morality may have worked back in his home town as a growing boy but he, like so many others with such notions, will find their authoritarian outlook increasingly divisive and incompatible with the real world. Only a broader more mature understanding of ethics and morality will be consistent with a peaceful, prosperous, and secure society - something I'd think the military should be interested in.

Increasing Wisdom

Matt writes:

"What is the best way to increase wisdom? Rote reading? To be able to apply wisdom, we must first know it, see it works, then we can own it, though repetition is the only way I know for that 3rd step. The goal being a fearless, tranquility, and freedom."

There are a number of interesting leads in this. I also like the last sentence, proposing an ends to increasing wisdom. Is this the purpose of wisdom; to allow us to be fearless, tranquil, and free?

The question about rote reading and talk about learning something, applying it, and 'owning it' seem to imply that wisdom is knowledge - more specifically, that wisdom is knowledge of a large set of algorithms or procedures which we can first memorize, then apply for specific effects.

This doesn't seem right to me. Knowledge, or perhaps life experience, is certainly helpful in living a happy life. But in reality, knowledge itself is a commodity, and to assume that we increase wisdom by our accumulation of knowledge, seems to me dangerously similar to thinking that we can increase wisdom by our accumulation of material goods, friends, or status.

Are educated people more wise than people lacking formal educations? Can I become more wise by reading Plato, Socrates, Epictetus, Kant, and Hume - or by reading the various self help books of our age? Maybe these things, if learned and applied, might improve our skill of 'life practice', but that still doesn't seem like wisdom to me.

I saw a bit of a recent television program where a young girl, 18, wanted to get married and she was arguing with her mother, who was trying to tell her it was foolish at her age. The mother brought up some points and the girl answered with responses that seemed to miss the point. What often happens with young people is they believe they can figure out all of their actions and their future effects logically. When told something is a bad idea, they want specific reasons that will show how things will turn out badly, and if they don't find them convincing they will plow ahead. I remember when I was that age and older people would say, 'you'll learn when you get older'. I would ask them to just tell me now! When they couldn't I assumed they were simply ignorant or trying to use their age as justification for a position that had no merit.

What less experienced people don't yet understand is that some realizations can't be communicated simply with words or simple 'this leads to that' formulation. If they could, then all you'd have to do to make a young man as wise as an older man would be to sit him down and explain to him what he's going to learn over the next 40 years that is so damned important. But this isn't possible.

Perhaps wisdom includes a very subtle and complex 'weighing of the facts' that is the accumulated perspective one gets after millions of observations which, individually don't mean much and may even be forgotten in an ocean of fine-tuned neurons over a lifetime. Thus, explaining why an 18 year old shouldn't get married to a 40 year old is easy, but almost impossible to an 18 year old. When she gets to 26 she starts to say, 'oh! I get it now', but alas, when she tries to tell her little sister, regardless of the detail of her arguments and her eloquence of speech, the little sister simply doesn't have a sufficient reserve of experience to fully grasp or appreciate (grock) what is being told to her.

The image pictured with this post is a sort of wisdom labyrinth which represents walking the path to wisdom. There is a church my wife and I visited when we were in California which has this pattern in a large courtyard. It was designed for people to start at the outside and meditatively walk slowly the entire path to the center. This ritual is designed to instill in our minds that we can look at the path, we can know the path, and even memorize it - but we can't have wisdom until we actually walk it ourselves. I think some of what I've been writing about above must relate to this notion.

There are also important discoveries being made about changes in body chemistry and brain structure that happen as we enter different periods of our lives. These may indicate that certain realizations, perspectives, dispositions, and responses in various situations may be incredibly difficult for some people to achieve at certain times - regardless of what they have read or memorized.

Therefore, I would advise to the seeker: yes, keep reading, learning, and applying. But have patience with yourself and others. What may be difficult or unclear now may become easier with age and experience. You may find yourself returning many times to material you thought you understood years ago, but then suddenly grasp it on a deeper level - as if looking at one of those optical illusions that look like one subject until you stare at it long enough and see another. I would also therefore advise (especially for those in their early 20s or younger) that it is equally important to have some degree of trust in your elders and understand that they may know things which you simply cannot grasp at the moment, regardless of explanation. This trust includes some degree of obedience to proper authorities without always having full understanding. For adults, it means not assuming that older people may not have many things to teach us, even if they haven't read as much as we.

Several years ago, when I began actively looking for ways to increase my wisdom, I began first with the question: what exactly is wisdom? What I thought would be the first step turned out to be the journey. Above all I would recommend: ask the question. As I have explored what wisdom is and what it means to be wise, I have found this very exploration helpful in increasing it. I'm still no wiser than many people, but I can't help but think that careful and detailed pursuit of this question has helped me.

Thanks for the question Matt!

Incidentally, over at my philosophy site, one section of my 'Noble Conspectus' is titled 'Wisdom' [link HERE]. It may contain some more thoughts on Matt's question. More than myself however, I'd recommend any number of wiser people, perhaps starting with some on my recommended reading list.

A Question

"Since before your sun burned hot in space and before your race was born, I have awaited a question" -- The Guardian of Forever

Anyway, I have noticed that many of my best thoughts have been inspired by the questions and posts of others. I find myself writing quite a bit in response to these, and then suddenly have to look at a blank screen when it comes time to make my blog posts.

Therefore, I'd like to open the blog up to philosophical questions from readers. These can be quirky questions or serious questions relating to our approach to life and specific issues. They can range from analytical to more accessible philosophy.

Of course, I'll still post on other things when they come up, but if you folks send me some interesting issues and questions, then not only would it help inspire me but it would also ensure that this blog remains focused on subjects of most interest to you!

So please, ask away in comments to this post!

Being Religious? $20

Interesting story - I leave it to the reader to decide the message...

I attend this gathering of Humanists called the Humanist Contemplatives Club. We meet at the Rothko chapel each month. The Rothko Chapel is sort of a multi-faith chapel used for many reasons. The Contemplatives Club is about exploring a more 'spiritual' aspect of naturalistic Humanism, so we chose the Chapel because it's a very serene and beautiful location.

Anyway, I come out of there one night and see I have a ticket on my windshield. Even then I had to look carefully to see why. There isn't really a parking space at the chapel; cars just park on the street. But there are parking signs all around on the curbs. They're all normal except the one I was next to, which was a handicapped sign. Unfortunately, the signs are turned parallel to the curb so that you can't see them when you're approaching, and they're pretty high up too, so they're past the view of my little car's windshield. Not only that, but it was pitch black night around there and no street lighting.

The ticket was $205 so I decided to see if I could plead my case.

Several days later, I went to the area of the courthouse where tickets are adjudicated. I had never done this before so I didn't know what to expect (I've never even been in a court before). They had me sit in this little waiting room that felt kind of like the principle's office.

Then this guy comes and gets me, who looks very 'lawyer-like'. As it turns out he's a judge. He showed me to his office and I sat in the seat in front of his desk. He then turned on a tape recorder and told me to raise my right hand and swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (I noted that he fortunately didn't say the "so help you God" part). For a moment, I thought about saying, "You can't handle the truth!" but instead just said, "I do".

Then he looked at me with a cynical look on his face like, "here's yet another joker trying to BS his way out of a ticket." I told him I was guilty, but that I'd like to throw myself before the court and beg for mercy. Then I told him that it was an accident and there were many good spaces available, and I'd never do that, but before I could even get to the stuff about the darkness and the angle of the signs he said, "ok I'll knock it down to $75" and wrote it down on some form. I thanked him humbly.

Then a weird thing happened. He turned off the tape recorder and started to tell me something about how the reflective material on those signs is falling off and it turns out the stuff is radioactive. In retrospect, that might be an important thing to know, but I wasn't really sure what was going on. 'Are we chatting now?' I thought. I sort of went along with it, then he asked me why I was in that area - if it was to see the game (I guess there's a stadium or something nearby, I'm not into sports).

So I told him it was to go to the Rothko Chapel. He didn't know what that was so I explained it was a multifaith chapel. Then he said as he wrote over his previous figure, "ok, I'll cut it down to $55 - I wouldn't want to discourage you from being religious."

Hmm - too much there to think about in an instant so, rather than debate the finer points of what "being religious" meant, I decided to nod, thank him, and get out of there.

Change of Pace

Well, as you can see from the past two weeks, posts haven't been coming out on Fridays as usual. There have been some changes in my life that haven't left me as much time to explore and read new philosophy, much less think of ideas and write about them. This includes becoming president of my local Humanist group, a Humanist Minister, and several other responsibilities. I have reason to suspect the situation will get even tighter, so I considered bringing my blog to a close. However, I've recently received some nice comments from readers, which has inspired me to continue. Still, I think to be more realistic I'll change the name back to "DT Strain Philosophy Blog" (from "Philosophy Fridays") and then post whenever I can. Hopefully you folks will be understanding and not leave me. I'll try not to be too infrequent.

If You're looking for an easy way to know when new things have popped up here, you can add this blog's site feed to your Yahoo or Google homepage (or other home pages that allow feeds). As for the philosophy site, that will continue as it always has, with occasional additional essays.