Requesting Help With Oath

[arthurshiraz]

Dear Friends,

I am writing an oath for a secular political movement and I wanted your feedback.Please give me your feedback about the individual points and what can be added, edited .

Thanks :)



I affirm the necessity of separation of religion and state.
I affirm that reason comes before revelation.
I affirm the superiority of a rational, secular, common law over a
religious and divine law.
I affirm that I hold no hatred against any race, or against any hemisphere
or religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without
coercion.
I affirm my commitment to human progress.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties
towards my religion.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties
towards my family or tribe.

[StrictSeparationist]

I affirm that reason comes before revelation.

Is this movement meant to be exclusively atheistic? If not, then this point in particular may prove unsuitable for your oath.

[arthurshiraz]

Is this movement meant to be exclusively atheistic? If not, then this point in particular may prove unsuitable for your oath.

I have revised it to say :

I affirm that in matters public reason comes before revelation.


What do you think? Here is a revision and PLEASE feel free to add enlightened values to this oath, values that you would like to see affirmed in this document (an extension to or an evolution of the constitution) :


I affirm the necessity of separation of religion and state.
I affirm that in matters public reason comes before revelation.
I affirm the superiority of a rational, secular, common law over a religious and divine law.
I affirm that I hold no hatred against any race, or against any hemisphere or religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without coercion.
I affirm my commitment to human progress.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties towards my religion.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties towards my family or tribe.

[Karalora]

The last one makes me uneasy. Encouraging people to put patriotism before family is very reminiscent of military propaganda--which depends on people's (especially men's) willingness to leave their spouses and children behind while they go off and die for their country.

[arthurshiraz]

The last one makes me uneasy. Encouraging people to put patriotism before family is very reminiscent of military propaganda--which depends on people's (especially men's) willingness to leave their spouses and children behind while they go off and die for their country.

I wrote something on this issue of country vs. god. Tell me what you think and if you still feel uneasy about country before god :

Recently at a party a friend claimed, “I am not an American, I am a Muslim�. He adjusted a black wristband and gulped his pink cocktail. “However I do believe in a secular America�, he added. I understood because my friend, Askari, was after all a Shiite Muslim.

Askari had come to the United States because he knew what it was like to be a religious minority in Islamic Pakistan. He knew of the terror when you entered an Imam Bargah. Askari’s best friend been killed simply because he was a Shiite Muslim. In response to the attacks against Shiites the Imams around the country were demanding a stronger allegiance to the one thing that made Shiites targets of Sipah Sahaba Pakistan: their faith. Askari felt he ought to support a secular country precisely because he was a Shiite. But what would Askari do if the Ayatollah in Iran asked him to wage Jihad against America? Would he then betray his country?

This is the question I pose to every religious person. What is more important being an American or being religious? What if your religion demanded that you wage war against America, would you do it? Islamist parties are already engaging in sabotage and subterfuge and assassination attempts because their faith demands that they betray their host country and convert it into an Islamic country. If you were a Christian and the Pope asked you to attack all abortion clinics that were committing murder would you kill obstetrician-gynecological doctors? If you were a pan-Islamic Sunni Muslim would you betray your country’s nuclear secrets to Libya or Iran or North Korea?

I proposed this question to some Islamic fanatics while driving to an Islamic convention in New York last spring and they said, “What has your country ever done for you? Think big brother in Islam!� It made me wonder about how much President Kennedy knew about the psyche of the people he had come from when he said, “Ask not what your country has done for you� I also thought of Independence Day. I remember the flags we painted on walls. I could see my aunt making homemade paper flags on sticks.

Then I remember the point where religion seeped into patriotism. I remember the Friday Khutbas when the Imam would proclaim, "We will make America Islamic". I remember reading about Anwar Sadaat and his assassination by the Islamic brotherhood. I remember reading about the Catholic universities where students cheered September 11 and demanded the installation of a Catholic King.

Would you betray your country in the service of your religion?

I remember the Jamaat Islami inform me that everyone was born a Muslim. Was I born a Muslim? Or was I born a Pakistani? Or was I born a human being?

Consider the following identities written in order of priority (from high to low):

- Human being
- Citizen.
- Familial or ethnic loyalty.
- Religious identity.

Perhaps as a religious person you will be offended by this prioritization so allow me to pit the identities against each other and see which one wins in your eyes. Take your identity as a human being for example. If two human beings were dying on a battlefield to whom would you give the water to? Will you ask them about their religions? Would you deny water to a man who does not believe in Allah or Christ? How about the next identity as a citizen? Will you judge people by the passport they carry or will you ask the dying men what tribe or family they belonged to? In my eyes an admirable human being will overlook nationality, creed, religion and ethnicity to treat all people as human beings.

Now take your familial or tribal loyalty. Suppose you were standing on the battlefield and your commander-in-chief asked you to go to the field and kill your uncle, your father and your brothers because they had refused to believe, would you do it? The Prophet Mohammad allegedly asked Muslims to do this exact same thing in order to prove their loyalty and to test their “faith�.

The Imams ask the same of their worshippers just like God tested Abraham by asking him to slaughter his son. In Islam the word of Allah and his Messenger (as understood by the Imam) is above the pleas of your brothers and sisters, your father and your mother. Would you kill your mother if someone’s interpretation of religion demanded it of you? Think about this whenever you ask your children to read this holy book or to attend that house of worship. The religious have no loyalties except to their god. A Muslim serves no one except Allah. An Islamist will stab the very womb that gave birth to him. A role model to Muslims is Abraham, a man who tried to kill his son. Do you want to take the chance that Allah will replace you with a lamb before the knife strikes?

But how loyal must you be to your family? Would you surrender your brother to the Police if you found out that he was the Unabomber? Supposing you were interviewing for a job would you hire a person because you liked their last name? Or would you hire that person because they were the same ethnicity or would you engage in nepotism by hiring your cousin?

You were not born Muslims or Christians or Jews. You were born human beings. They uttered the religious creed in your ear and mutilated your genitals and asked you to ignore your passport and assassinate the leaders of your country and obey religious men half way across the world.

What if you said, “What I say to my God is my business and I shall not harm my family, I shall not injure my country nor any human being just because my religion commands me, I will cherish my family and my country and my humanity above my religion�? What if you said “I will not engage in nepotism nor give preference to my family over my fellow countrymen because I believe in merit and equal opportunity?� What if you said “I will hold my country dear to me but I will also strive for the progress of all humanity� Wouldn’t that be nice?

[arthurshiraz]

The last one makes me uneasy. Encouraging people to put patriotism before family is very reminiscent of military propaganda--which depends on people's (especially men's) willingness to leave their spouses and children behind while they go off and die for their country.

Here is the revised version :

I affirm the necessity of separation of religion and state.
I affirm that in matters public reason comes before revelation.
I affirm the superiority of a rational, secular, common law over a religious and divine law.
I affirm that I hold no hatred against any race, or against any hemisphere or religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without coercion.
I affirm my commitment to human progress and human rights.
I affirm that after the human rights my loyalties lie with my country.
I affirm that my country comes before my loyalties towards my religion.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties towards my family or tribe.

[Karalora]

I won't argue with "country before religion". I also will not argue with "country before ethnicity". What makes me uneasy is "country before family"...which you did not specifically address. Why should I be more loyal to the government than to my loved ones?

I agree that if your relatives are doing something criminal, you should report them. But a stark policy of "country before family" would be cruel. We acknowledge now that in some senses, family loyalty is more important than the law. Defense of loved ones can bring a murder down to a justifiable homicide. Family necessity is considered a mitigating circumstance in some cases of theft. You can't be forced to testify against your spouse in court. An absolute "country before family" standard would negate these.

[Toto]

. . .

I affirm that my country comes before my loyalties towards my religion.

I affirm that my loyalties towards my country come before my loyalties towards my family or tribe.

These last two "affirmations" don't feel right. They look like you want to create a patriotic movement with totalitarian tendencies.

Everyone in this country with any sense has some values that they place above loyalty to country. It is the competing pull of civic institutions and family ties that keeps our society creative and democratic.

Contrast Iraq under Saddam Hussein who tried to turn national loyalty into a state religion. The effect is only to stifle humanistic values.

[arthurshiraz]

These last two "affirmations" don't feel right. They look like you want to create a patriotic movement with totalitarian tendencies.

Contrast Iraq under Saddam Hussein who tried to turn national loyalty into a state religion. The effect is only to stifle humanistic values.

What makes you say that Saddam Hussain wanted his people to place familial loyalty over national loyalty. Saddam Hussain created a nation where loyalty to the minority sect (Sunni Islam in Iraq is the minority) and the superiority of his own family, relatives and town came before that of greater Iraq which includes Kurds and Shiites. How can you then say that Saddam Hussein wanted to place country before family or tribe? The tribe is supreme in Iraq in case you didn't know or didn't notice. If anything Iraq is based on tribal and at best sectarian loyalties.

There is no loyalty to Iraq in Iraq. Not even the ruling class cares about Iraq the country. What they care about is holding power and attacking neighbors and spreading their brand of religion.

Whoever told you that Iraq is a PATRIOTIC country is doing a disservice to Iraq (and obviously has ulterior motives or ignorance as the primary motivation) - it is like saying that the Arab Muslims from Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan , Iran are ALL attacking Israel daily because of "Palestenian nationalism". The notion of Palestenian nationalism was created specifically to feed the westerners with the rationale behind the attempt to take over Jerusalem. It is a religious struggle and to paint it as nationalistic is to absolve the Hizbollah that came all the way from Iran and settled in Lebanon within the last 2 decades with the sole purpose of killing Jews.

It is like saying Nazis were motivated by a love for nationalism of Germany. If Nazis were nationalistic then why did they persecute and kill German gypsies and german jews and german homosexuals ? because Nazis were run by a devout catholic , adolph hitler, who made a pact with the Vatican to rid his dominion of Jews for the crime of killing Jesus (read his speeches and the quotes on infidels.org) and because Nazis contorted and turned this around into a religio-supremacist party (NOT nationalist) that fought for "the Lord" and the "the Lord's/god's war".

Why do you think Catholic Poland hosted Aushwitz? Why do you think catholic France surrendered so easily? Why do you think the Italians jumped happily into the fold ? Or the Spanish ? Why do you think that the first chance Hitler got he attacked godless Russia?

I don't know why ANYONE would call Iraq Secular. What leader of a secular country would call for destruction of Israel and Jews and spout things like Allah favors us and with the help of Allah we will make Iraq the graveyard of the infidels? What leader of a secular country would build thousands of mosques built with state money? What leader of a secular country would publicly denounce and subjugate the majority sect of that country?

Just because Osama comes up to you and says "I am a hippie" does not mean you go and start saying "The Talibans were hippies you know"!
"Really the Taliban were Hippies?"
"Yes they claimed to be!"
"Look what Hippiesm created! a totalitarian state!"

Muslims and Islamists claim to be many things one of them is being peaceful. Do you believe that and say 'Islamists are peaceful? Look what peaceful people create! a totalitarian state!"

By the way, how do you say:


Everyone in this country with any sense has some values that they place above loyalty to country. It is the competing pull of civic institutions and family ties that keeps our society creative and democratic.

Which country are you talking about? Southern Italy and Sicily ? Or would it be the corrupt "family centric" societies of Latin America? Or would it be the nepotism and corruption and failing banking system of some Asian tigers?

Just becaue a person lives with their family does not give that person exposure to the tyranny of amoral familism (I would recommend Banfield).

I am also enclosing a short article in the next post on the moments when family is placed above other things.

[arthurshiraz]

What makes me uneasy is "country before family"...which you did not specifically address. Why should I be more loyal to the government than to my loved ones?


Attached is the article on the Immoral Familism. It is written with a very specific audience in mind so I don't know if this will make sense but these are my concerns.

The Immoral Family

A backwards society stresses loyalty to the family despite the family’s behavior. I get a taste of this morality whenever I dare to criticize my country or my religion. I am told "Ghar ki baat, bahar walon ko na batao" (the talk of the house should not be revealed outside). At other times my uncle calls me from Australia and says "Changez Khan nay kaha, jo apnon ka nahin wo kisee ka nahin" (Genghis Khan once said that one who is not loyal to his own family is not loyal to anyone).

This uncritical loyalty to the family, clan, ethnicity, country or religion is typical of pre-capitalist, feudal societies. If we are to change the face of our country we must first learn to question the values that are taught to our children. A survey was conducted evaluating "unqualified respect for elders" which was measured by the following question: Should a person respect one’s elders regardless of their qualities and regardless of their faults?

It was found that the most obedient youth came from the more corrupt societies. Known for their strong family ties most Asian nations rank amongst the most corrupt. On the other hand Scandinavians are considered the least family-oriented and also the least corrupt. Familism and the Corruption Perception Index were found to be directly and strongly related.

How can loyalty to the family be bad? Can you imagine a citizen of the third world turning his own blood brother in to the Police to be tried for terrorism? Even our Law Enforcement Agencies have a difficult time turning in criminals; forget about a brother betraying his brother. Yet the Unabomber’s brother turned his own flesh and blood over to the Police.

In third world countries, like Pakistan, the most common complaint is "Rishwat" (bribery) and "Sifarish" (also known as "pawwa") otherwise known as nepotism. Believe it or not out of about 6,000 high officials more than 4,000 are brothers, nephews, nieces, and in-laws of CSP officers.

One cannot expect the government to control corruption by making law after law when the unwritten law of the land, the very values of the people of Pakistan creates an environment of corruption that rivals that of Uganda and Kenya. This "love for the family" often refuses to judge people based on merit. The Italian mafia and the brotherhood of Islam is an extreme example of this "we hear and obey� loyalty.

Primitive societies like the ones in Southern Italy and Latin America stress loyalty to the family and urge the dominant classes to help the less fortunate. In contrast, modern rationally driven market economies stress individualism and concern for self. It is this individualism that is conducive to capital accumulation. The Protestant nations of Northern Europe believed that "God helps those who help themselves" so you will be helped by god only if you help yourself first. With these words the Protestant nations shattered the fetters of the sib and leaped out of the Dark Ages.

How can "helping your own self" help your country? How can being selfish help Pakistan? I found the answer to this question when I was struggling with what most good Pakistani men struggle. As most Muslim men are aware the moment you start earning money (sometimes even before you leave college) you are supposed to send money back home to your mother or father. It is a sign of manhood that a Pakistani male and his family eagerly await. However after years of payment I began to have doubts.

I was really conflicted, also known as "confused" by the Fresh Off the Boat Pakistani. I asked my German American friend what he thought about this obligation. Mike told me that societies progress when parents give it all to their child. Then the children grow up and start families and give it all to their children in return. Being selfish for your sake and for the sake of your progeny is the secret to capital aggregation. In contrast Pakistani society gives birth to children who give money back to their own parents creating stagnation while simultaneously complaining, "What is causing this stagnation?"

I share this model with my own family but it does not register upon them. All they know is that I was their "investment" and its time to cash in. But that is NOT how my parents felt when they were my age. When I was growing up I remember my own mother ask my father "Why do you pay this tax to your own father?" This created a lot of tension between my mother and my grandmother. My father grudgingly paid and was unable to break the cycle of "family tax". I don’t know if I will succeed.

Solidarity with the extended family and hostility to the outsider who is not a member of family or the religion can produce a self-interested culture. I notice this "xenophobia" in my own family. If you are in Pakistan you will be hard pressed to see anyone "outside the family" attending any of the traditional holidays. Even when we move to foreign countries and ought to rely on the kindness of strangers we tend to remain within our own families. My sisters were married off to my cousins and every Thanksgiving, Eid and 4th of July we only hang out within the family. Woe upon the member who dares to marry or befriend anyone outside the family, culture, country, religion or race (in increasing order of woe).

How do the family elders continue their rule over their children? They use guilt “Look at those western societies, they abandon their parents in some nursing home� The elderly belittle grown adults “I remember you when I used to wipe your behind, to me you will always be 2 years old� The psychological edge of the elders is also used to instill fear “you will be alone�. This fear of loneliness keeps many from cutting the chord. I am not necessarily advocating changing your last name, but I am asking for your sake, for your children’s sake, for your spouse’s sake: show everyone that you are your own person. A traditional family might help you survive better but it will not help you develop better.

They say, "American society is falling apart because the American family is apart". Muslims and Catholics from Latin America or Italy often voice this complaint. They say that wherever modernity and prosperity touches its feet "the children question their elders". The children are rebelling in traditionally Confucian but fast modernizing societies like Thailand and Singapore and Japan. I say that if you wish to modernize and progress then differentiate yourself from your father. The close-knit family encourages physical and sexual abuse of children. The traditional family restricts the child’s individuation. The harm done to our children and our members translates into harm inflicted on our societies. Individuate for your children if you don’t have the courage to do it for your contemporaries.


I agree that if your relatives are doing something criminal, you should report them. But a stark policy of "country before family" would be cruel.

And what if it's not considered criminal by the family? Like in the mob, what their fathers and brothers are doing is not considered criminal by that family and is therefore never reported.

Let me ask you, how do you define something as criminal? You assume that an act will harm the society at large IRRESPECTIVE of the benefit it gives to the individual or group or mob or FAMILY. So a crime is an act that SUPERSEDES the values of individual families and takes into account the larger society. By definition then an act that is criminal is something that harms the country or society DESPITE what it may do to the family. A criminal is punished because that is good for the society (and it may not be good for the family). So a judge already does NOT consider "It will break my mama's heart if you send me to Sing Sing!" as an argument.

So if you have an act that benefits your family ONLY and not the society at large at worst it is a crime and at best it is nepotism (or corruption). Family or tribal loyalties come AFTER country and society at large.

We acknowledge now that in some senses, family loyalty is more important than the law. Defense of loved ones can bring a murder down to a justifiable homicide.

Self defense against a murderer places the family above the law? No. Not if the law itself makes provisions for self defense where it recognizes that society in general will be harmed if a member or its members are under attacks from a homocidal maniac. In that case whether the intended victim is a family member or a stranger becomes irrelevant. Would it be justifiable homocide if you stopped a murderer from slowly hacking to death a complete stranger? Yes.

Family necessity is considered a mitigating circumstance in some cases of theft.

In SOME cases of theft. If it's food or few provisions or cloths from KMart. But you cannot break into our nuclear arsenal and sell it to the terrorists because of your family. The family itself is a part of the state and society.

The state recognizing this relationship allows for an extent to which one can bleed the state or larger society for one's family. Even then it does not make it legal nor does it make it right but a "mitigating circumstance" where cloths and food and books and thefts of innocuous nature are ok but not something that results in greater damage to the state than it would result in damage/benfit to the family.

Even here the state and society at large comes before the family because the family becomes part of the state. Does it make sense? Defending your loved ones (who are part of the nation) against a murderer is like a patriot for defending the nation against a murderer. The murderer or attacker then falls outside of society.

What I just explained is subtle and almost recursive I believe. I don't know if the example cited is relevant or even valid. It becomes tricky though.

But you do understand my motivation behind including that statement, don't you? However it seems to be arousing misunderstandings and irrelevant examples and things unrelated to what I was trying to target which is nepotism and corruption and xenophobia. If you are unconvinced, how do you think I can rephrase this?

You can't be forced to testify against your spouse in court. An absolute "country before family" standard would negate these.

A spouse is NOT family. In the old days when you got arranged married it could have been considered family but if you marry a complete stranger out of love that stranger does not become family. Love creates a completely different relationship. Your parents, siblings, extended family, children etc. ARE family because there is no CHOICE involved in having them as family. That is why you cannot force a spouse to testify against their spouse.

[arthurshiraz]

After the last post I made it just a little bit clearer on the last few options:


I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without coercion.
I affirm my commitment to scientific progress then human rights.
I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my democracy.
I affirm that my democratic country comes before my loyalties towards my religion.
I affirm that my loyalties towards my democratic society come before my loyalties towards my family or tribe.

[Writer@Large]

Since arthurshiraz has started a fresh thread for his revised oath, (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81215) I'm going to shut this one down and direct further discussion there (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81215).

--W@L