The Revised Oath

[arthurshiraz]

Following is the revised oath, please tell me what you guys think of the revision, btw. this is for a secularize movement that we intend to start.

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 scientific progress and knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.
I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance as developed in Europe and the United States of America.
I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance.

[Demosthenes]

I'm curious about the focus on the Renaissance in the last two affirmations. Why do you feel necessary to bound yourself to the past? Many of the ideals developed in the Renaissance can be found in modern forms today as well. In all, your oath feels a bit dogmatic to me. All those affirms make me wonder what would happen if somebody were not to or forget to affirm one of the affirmations.

I'm keen to hear more about the society you plan to start.

[catalyst]

I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.


This one I have a problem with. If I had any family to speak of, nothing would come before them.

[arthurshiraz]

This one I have a problem with. If I had any family to speak of, nothing would come before them.

You are referring to the line : I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.


This was written with Banfield's Immoral Familism in mind. When an individual prefers their family or tribe over the general good of the family corruption and nepotism are rampant. This is the case in Southern Italy and Sicily in particular where family comes above Italian society and Italian Government.

Instances where "family ties" are given greater importance merit takes a backseat. You may see such instances of corruption in certain Asian societies which are ranked amongst the most corrupt of the nations (amongst the developed nations) as well as most corrupt of nations amongst the developing world category. I am referring to the world values survey (which corelated family values with the corruption perception index).

Please tell me if this has convinced you of the validity of the above.

[arthurshiraz]

I'm curious about the focus on the Renaissance in the last two affirmations.

Because our present modern society is based on that Renaissance in Europe - starting from the Rights of Man and King Henry declaring that the Church of England was to serve England and NOT the Vatican.

Why do you feel necessary to bound yourself to the past?

When you quote Betrand Russell or you recount the struggles of Galileo and Copernicus and Darwin and the persecution suffered by men of reason around the world at the hands of the superstitous you awaken within you a sense of history and a sense of the principles that will lead us towards a better society.

Many of the ideals developed in the Renaissance can be found in modern forms today as well.

Exactly my point but these ideals are found only in the developed world. The most progressive societies are the closest to the pole of the ideals of the Renaissance. Surely we atheists, agnostics and freethinkers have no objection to the men who fostered this Renaissance from DaVinci, MichaelAngelo, Bacon, Voltaire, Luther to Queen Elizabeth, Newton, Hobbes, Hume and Locke etc.

In all, your oath feels a bit dogmatic to me. All those affirms make me wonder what would happen if somebody were not to or forget to affirm one of the affirmations.
I'm keen to hear more about the society you plan to start.

It is really like a constitution. So we can hold certain truths to be self evident and begin from there rather than be paralyzed by debates and philosophies on the same topics for generations. We hold certain truths to be self evident : reason is above revelation! etc.

The society is already started and members abound! It has a chapter in New York City with a focus on one particular country :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Secularize_Pakistan/


In the words of John Lennon "Imagine no Religion" and "I hope someday you will join us" and "the world will live as one".

[Silent Acorns]

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 scientific progress and knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
I heartilly agree that these are good, although I think the second one needs a little editing to make its intended meaning clear. Perhaps:

I affirm that in public matters, reason comes before revelation.
I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.
You start to lose me here. As far as I'm concerned, "loyalty to my nation" has no moral/ethical value. An affirmation on the supremacy of reason and basic human rights is enough. I agree that the "general good of society" deserves a mention. It is certainly more important than the selfish desires of my tribe or family. I would suggest dropping all three of these and replacing them with something like the following:

I affirm that the general good of society comes before the selfish desires of my nation, my religion, my tribe, or my family.
I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance as developed in Europe and the United States of America
I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance.
Technically, I think you're talking about the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance. Although, perhaps you mean both.

[A. Uiet bhor]

"I affirm that I hold no hatred against any race, or against any hemisphere or religion."

As an evolutionist i do not recognise the concept of race, it is scientifically invalid, and for many biologists. Also i dont exactly hate religon but it does discust me, from a moral viewpoint. This could be a problem for other freethinkers as well. It could be argued as being a bad idea to tolerate an intolerant faith, a person within the "flock" may be suffering civil rights abuses.

"I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without coercion. "

Are not all people in religons coerced in some way? either from parents or conversion.


"I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation."

try to find a religon that doesnt ask full loyalty from its followers.

"I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance as developed in Europe and the United States of America."

i see what your driving at, but try enlightenment instead, much more to the point, as the reaissance still had a lot of religous left over stuck to it. Try instead to identifiy with the freethinkers of the world, ancient greece, china, india etc.

[arthurshiraz]

You start to lose me here. As far as I'm concerned, "loyalty to my nation" has no moral/ethical value.

What about a nation founded on the constitution and the freedoms enshrined in our bill of rights ? Can you not express your loyalty to rights like freedom of speech, expression , press and protest along with the words that say "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal".

I understand we don't want to be nationalistic or jingoistic but there is a point where you can be loyal to your nation. Example if you were told by your ruling government to kill Jews you would not obey them because human rights come BEFORE nations.

However if your government asks you to help track down terrorists who wish to bomb and terrorize the nation then do you not have the obligation to express your loyalty to your nation though the terrorists be a part of your own tribe or community?


I would suggest dropping all three of these and replacing them with something like the following:

I affirm that the general good of society comes before the selfish desires of my nation, my religion, my tribe, or my family.

Condensing all of this into one line ignores the heirarchy of loyalties between nation, religion, tribe and family. Suppose your religion asks you to betray your nation for e.g. the Pope says "Steal nuclear secrets and bomb abortion clinics and gay clubs" or the Ayatollah says "Steal nukes and bomb the whole country". So nation must take precedence over religion.

What if your religion asks you to stone or flog your child for committing adultery (as is the case with some religions)? What if your religion asks you to slaughter your own family/children if you wish to please god ? like abraham tried to kill Ishmael or was it Isaac?

[catalyst]

You are referring to the line : I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.


This was written with Banfield's Immoral Familism in mind. When an individual prefers their family or tribe over the general good of the family corruption and nepotism are rampant. This is the case in Southern Italy and Sicily in particular where family comes above Italian society and Italian Government.

Instances where "family ties" are given greater importance merit takes a backseat. You may see such instances of corruption in certain Asian societies which are ranked amongst the most corrupt of the nations (amongst the developed nations) as well as most corrupt of nations amongst the developing world category. I am referring to the world values survey (which corelated family values with the corruption perception index).

Please tell me if this has convinced you of the validity of the above.


Nepotism is never good for anyone. By way of example, if I had a brother who was incompetent to work in a lab that I supervise, if I gave him a job anyways, I would be causing problems for many, including him. It would allow him to either think that that is the way things are normally done, teach a form of learned helplessness, etc.

If I truly wanted to help him, I would help him learn the skills necessary to find a job, and in the process learn self-reliance, a work ethic, etc.

The practice of nepotism is not valueing someone you love, but quite the opposite.

[clark]

Like most above, I like the top half, but not the bottom half. This begs the question though: what is the oath for and why is an oath needed?

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Mageth]

I agree with most of the criticisms above.

In addition, perhaps:

I affirm that I defend the right of every being to follow religion without coercion.

should be modified to include the non-religious, as in:

I affirm that I defend the right of every being [actually, human may be more appropriate here] to follow religion without coercion, or to follow no religion.

Or, alternatively, add an affirmation to defend the right to follow no religion.

And I am also curious as to the purpose/need of the oath.

[Brion]

Much as I hate to admit it,
I am unable to swear not to hate, some, religions.

[arthurshiraz]

.
Technically, I think you're talking about the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance. Although, perhaps you mean both.

Could you please elaborate the major points that make the enlightenment UNIQUE and different from the renaissance. Basically why do you feel that it ought to be the enlightenment? I noted the rennaisance even though it precedes the enlightenment because of a major point during the renaissance : man attempting to assert his rights above the rights of god + man attempting to imitate , excel and overpower nature (as in Davinci and MichaelAngelo).

[catalyst]

And I remain curious as to why exactly you feel the need for an oath in the first place?

[sakrilege]

I get the feeling there may be some cultural differences. Family/Tribe in Pakistan may have different connotations than in the US/Western world.

[arthurshiraz]

My dear Mr. Bhor, please tell me where you live and what country and I shall move there. Are there many people in your land who think like you?

It could be argued as being a bad idea to tolerate an intolerant faith, a person within the "flock" may be suffering civil rights abuses.

This is great! How do I phrase it so as to communicate that we will allow certain groups to practice their religion as long as that group does not follow the religion of "lets sacrifice our child" and "let's throw our widows on the pyre" and "lets mutilate our children" etc.



Are not all people in religons coerced in some way? either from parents or conversion.


That is true. How do you protect against that ?



"I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation."

try to find a religon that doesnt ask full loyalty from its followers.


Mr. Bhor, ofcourse ALL religions will want full loyalty from their followers and exclusive rights and will wish to be ABOVE all man made laws. The task is to isolate and remove such followers and not include them within the community.



"I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance as developed in Europe and the United States of America."

i see what your driving at, but try enlightenment instead, much more to the point, as the reaissance still had a lot of religous left over stuck to it. Try instead to identifiy with the freethinkers of the world, ancient greece, china, india etc.

This is a great idea. However I don't want people to say "Secularism was developed by the people of the congo" and then bastardize what it means to be secular and walk around calling themselves secular. I want to root it in some historical and regional context. I wish to define what secularism is and capture the nuances of the meaning of secularism from the historical context of Elizabeth in England.

As for enlightenment vs. rennaissance. I will read up on the differences between the two but I am at a loss as to where to begin. Any help would be appreciated in terms of references or even a separate post or thread on infidels.org

[arthurshiraz]

This is a great idea. However I don't want people to say "Secularism was developed by the people of the congo" and then bastardize what it means to be secular and walk around calling themselves secular. I want to root it in some historical and regional context. I wish to define what secularism is and capture the nuances of the meaning of secularism from the historical context of Elizabeth in England.


Let me elaborate on this so as to avoid looking like I am prejudiced against the congolese (oh the age of the over sensitive and the politically correct). An example of the bastardization of the term secular and the attack on secularism is India where terms like pseudo-secular is being used by the religious right to attack the tenets of secularism. Islamists who don't know what secularism is think it involves including the Sharia or Islamic law into the law of the land. Therefore the need for defining and protecting what it means to be secular - rather the separation of from state matters (or is it politics also?)

[arthurshiraz]

I get the feeling there may be some cultural differences. Family/Tribe in Pakistan may have different connotations than in the US/Western world.

I gave examples of the mafia and sicily where in southern Italy the entire society is screwed over for the sake of the family.

The very definition of nepotism is rooted in the evil that arises when family is given precedence over the country.

Main Entry: nep·o·tism
Pronunciation: 'ne-p&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew -- more at NEPHEW
: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
- nep·o·tis·tic /"ne-p&-'tis-tik/ adjective

[arthurshiraz]

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 defend human rights.
I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.
I affirm that after human rights I defend the right of ever being to live with or without religion.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation.
I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.
I affirm my commitment to scientific progress and knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
I affirm to defend scientific truths and pursuits against religious and ethical attacks.
I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as developed in Europe and the United States of America.
I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and age of Enlightenment.

[arthurshiraz]

Following is the revision on children and adults on religion and parents forcing children into religion or indoctrination.

I affirm that after human rights I defend the right of every adult to live with or without religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination.

[BioBeing]

...the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment...
Can you list these ideals for me? Is such a list unannimously agreed upon by scholars and others? How does it differ from those listed above?

If there is *any* question about what such a list should be, then get rid of it. Ambiguity is bad. If it does not add to what has been said already, then get rid of it. Repetition is bad.

[arthurshiraz]

Can you list these ideals for me? Is such a list unannimously agreed upon by scholars and others? How does it differ from those listed above?

If there is *any* question about what such a list should be, then get rid of it. Ambiguity is bad. If it does not add to what has been said already, then get rid of it. Repetition is bad.

You are absolutely right HOWEVER these last two ideals which are vague and troublesome for me are included for two reasons :

- to bring non western societies (hostile to the west) closer to the west.

- to recognize the rennaisannce and the enlightenment where the rights of man overcame the rights of god.

- i myself don't know much in depth information about either period but I know vaguely that they were good periods and that voltaire was cool ... (not a good reason and it means I have to research this more).

- to avoid namesake secular communities like Iraq allegedly was and Libya, Egypt claim to be. These countries are abusing the word secular to the point that the meaning of the word is lost.

So :

I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as developed in Europe and the United States of America.
I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and age of Enlightenment.


How can I be more specific ? and communicate the above? I do wish to recognize these periods as the birthing grounds of secular thought. And to recognize atleast the contributions of Queen Elizabeth and King Henry the VIII and Martin Luther's Reformation etc.

[arthurshiraz]

Following is the revision on children and adults on religion and parents forcing children into religion or indoctrination.

I affirm that after human rights I defend the right of every adult to live with or without religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination.


I affirm that after human rights I defend the right of every adult to live with or without religion.
I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination and physical abuse and mutilation.

What do you think ? Nice hunh :)

[Silent Acorns]

Could you please elaborate the major points that make the enlightenment UNIQUE and different from the renaissance. Basically why do you feel that it ought to be the enlightenment? I noted the rennaisance even though it precedes the enlightenment because of a major point during the renaissance : man attempting to assert his rights above the rights of god + man attempting to imitate , excel and overpower nature (as in Davinci and MichaelAngelo).
OK, I'm not a historian, but my general understanding of the Renaissance vs. the Enlightenment is that the Renaissance (1300-1500) saw the rise of the philosophy of Humanism, and the first erosions of Church power. It was during the Enlightenment (1700s) however that the political and economic reforms you seem to be alluding to were developed. The fact that you refer specifically to the USA proves this, since the discovery of the New World was one of the events that actually mark the end of the Renaissance.

[Silent Acorns]

However if your government asks you to help track down terrorists who wish to bomb and terrorize the nation then do you not have the obligation to express your loyalty to your nation though the terrorists be a part of your own tribe or community?
I think I understand what you are trying to say, you're trying to build a heirarchy of allegiences. But since you put the most basic (human rights) at the top, for practical purposes the others become trivial. Since basic human rights trumps all other loyalties, the only situations in which your oath would apply to your country is when the issue doesn't involve human rights. What are we left with then? The only thing I can think of are sporting events and the like. Your terrorist scenario is a good example of this. Assuming that the "terrorist" label is legitimate, these people are violating human rights and that alone is more than enough reason to support my government's call for support. No loyalty pledge to my country is required.
Condensing all of this into one line ignores the heirarchy of loyalties between nation, religion, tribe and family. Suppose your religion asks you to betray your nation for e.g. the Pope says "Steal nuclear secrets and bomb abortion clinics and gay clubs" or the Ayatollah says "Steal nukes and bomb the whole country". So nation must take precedence over religion.

What if your religion asks you to stone or flog your child for committing adultery (as is the case with some religions)? What if your religion asks you to slaughter your own family/children if you wish to please god ? like abraham tried to kill Ishmael or was it Isaac?
As I see it, these cases can all be handled with your affirmation to support human rights. The fundamental problem with these demands is that they are calling on you to violate people's basic rights, not that they ask you to betray your country or your family.

[Celsus]

Funny that having rejected religion, some attempt to embrace the trappings of religions with creeds. Why the nationalism? Why the Eurocentric bias? How exactly do you intend to "enlighten" the Third World?

Joel

[Silent Acorns]

Funny that having rejected religion, some attempt to embrace the trappings of religions with creeds. Why the nationalism? Why the Eurocentric bias? How exactly do you intend to "enlighten" the Third World?
I think he's trying to drum up support for liberal democratic reforms in Islamic countries (specifically Pakistan). The affirmations referring to Europe and the US are attempts, I believe, to counteract anti-Western biases like "the West has been oppressing us for generations, therefore they are evil and their ideas are evil".

[arthurshiraz]

Assuming that the "terrorist" label is legitimate,

So you are one of those people who think that the IRA or the Hamas, Hizbollah, Taliban, Bin Ladin may NOT be terrorists ? :)

You have been touched by the Islamic / socialist radicals to even say such a thing but you are right let's assume the terrorist label is the way Muslims use the word terrorists to describe Aid Workers and our soldiers defending and building their nations.

Country still comes BEFORE religious , familial or tribal loyalties.

Why ? what if the Pope asks you to defend the "human rights" of the unborn child and bomb abortion clinics. The right wing christian fundamentalist who snipers at an ob-gyn doctor is apparently defending human rights. He may may be betraying his country though and voilating the laws of the land. Human rights is a word too easily abused. So I will remove human rights from the oath.

It is too vague and open to abuse. {Flame Deleted}

[arthurshiraz]

I think he's trying to drum up support for liberal democratic reforms in Islamic countries (specifically Pakistan). The affirmations referring to Europe and the US are attempts, I believe, to counteract anti-Western biases like "the West has been oppressing us for generations, therefore they are evil and their ideas are evil".


That doesn't make me feel so great you know. Anyway if it works with this secular movement then I would like to introduce this to the American Atheists etc. I have a feeling they have a constitution and an oath or statement of some sort.

[Silent Acorns]

So you are one of those people who think that the IRA or the Hamas, Hizbollah, Taliban, Bin Ladin may NOT be terrorists ? :)

You have been touched by the Islamic / socialist radicals to even say such a thing but you are right let's assume the terrorist label is the way Muslims use the word terrorists to describe Aid Workers and our soldiers defending and building their nations.
{Flame Deleted} Your previous post made no reference to specific groups. Instead you referred to a hypothetical request from my government for support against a hypothetical group that my government hypothetically labelled as "terrorist". Under such a scenario, it is possible that said group is not in fact a terrorist organization. As such, my support for such a request will depend on the evidence at hand that said group is, in fact, a terrorist organization. I'm not going to just take my government's word for it.

Country still comes BEFORE religious , familial or tribal loyalties.
And I still insist that loyalty to country is trivial next to support of basic human rights.
Why ? what if the Pope asks you to defend the "human rights" of the unborn child and bomb abortion clinics. The right wing christian fundamentalist who snipers at an ob-gyn doctor is apparently defending human rights. He may may be betraying his country though and voilating the laws of the land. Human rights is a word too easily abused. So I will remove human rights from the oath.
OK, now what do you do if your President asks you to kill children in another country to prevent them from growing up to possibly kill the children of your country? According to your new, revised oath you should kill them.
It is too vague and open to abuse. {Flame Deleted}
If you honestly think that being loyal to one's government is more important than defending basic human rights then you are the one who lacks moral fibre, not me.

[Silent Acorns]

That doesn't make me feel so great you know.
I honestly don't know what you are upset about here. What I said was only my impression of what you are trying to do. I honestly thought that you are part of a movement that wants to bring secular, liberal, democratic reforms to certain third world countries. Given that many of these countries have significant elements that are highly anti-Western, and that you are trying to bring the best Western ideas to these nations, I assumed that your oath included references to Europe and the USA as an effort to bring the West and the Third World closer together.

[BioBeing]

i myself don't know much in depth information about either period but I know vaguely that they were good periods and that voltaire was cool ... (not a good reason and it means I have to research this more).

I'm not sure how you can word these better, but as they stand, would you be willing to swear your allegiance to something you only have a vague idea about? I certainly could not.

I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination and physical abuse and mutilation.
How would this be achieved? Are you planning on raiding Churches, Temples and Mosques every day and liberating any child found within?

[AspenMama]

This discussion seems to be veering slightly towards PD. Just a reminder to all participants to keep things friendly and positive while making your on-topic points. :) Thanks!

Forum Description:
Positive Atheism and Secular Activism: A forum for those seeking an answer to the question "Okay, I've rejected religion. What do I do now?" Defining what a nontheist is *beyond* lacking a belief in gods, discussing secular ethical and philosophical codes (humanism, etc.), nontheist fellowship and community developments, the role of the Internet (and the IIDB), labels for the community of nontheists (including "the Brights"), and issues of secular activism (including rallies, conventions, future GAMOWs, etc.).

---AspenMama, SL & PA&SA Moderator

[arthurshiraz]

You know what I love you guys :) sincerely speaking.

OK, now what do you do if your President asks you to kill children in another country to prevent them from growing up to possibly kill the children of your country? According to your new, revised oath you should kill them.


Ok this is what I was aiming for scenarios that poke a hole in the oath. This scenario is a great one. That is why I tried to write: I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.

However I would need to define the term human rights. You cannot however say something like "I affirm that I defend the Universal declaration of Human Rights as drafted in the year 1948" That would be too clumsy and legalistic but I will put a footnote.


If you honestly think that being loyal to one's government is more important than defending basic human rights then you are the one who lacks moral fibre, not me.

You are right! Absolutely correct. I didn't mean that human rights should take lower precendence than patriotism BUT I came up with the example of the Pope wanting his disciples to bomb clinics to save the life of the egg/fetus. What do we do to counter that ? If I put human rights above country then people can abuse that can't they?

They can say "What about the Human Rights of Al Qaeda?" or something like "What about human rights of Hizbollah?" or to be clearer "What about the human rights of Nazis? Are we not trampling those rights by invading Germany and killing the underage Hitler Youth?"

If everyone in the country wants verification about the validity of the terrorist label then there are lots of Irish who think the IRA is a freedom fighting Knights of the Templar brigade. What if they start to abandon our military because they think the IRA is virtuous? There are lots of Muslims in America who think AlQaeda is NOT a terrorist organization. There are lots of people who believe that the Basque in Spain are freedom fighters (there is even a restaurant in Manhattan that has connections to the Basque).

On the other hand I don't want to be under Nazi Germany and owing allegiance to Hitler, right? I don't want to trample human rights by gassing innocent civilians right? But the treatment of civilians and POWs and code and conduct of war are enshrined in the geneva convention, right?

So I do have a point and limit after which I will not advise obeying the government (any government) particularly if the government is the Islamic Empire of Iran. At which point the citizens ought to look at the universal declaration of human rights for guidance.

So you see the problem?


I honestly don't know what you are upset about here. What I said was only my impression of what you are trying to do. I honestly thought that you are part of a movement that wants to bring secular, liberal, democratic reforms to certain third world countries. Given that many of these countries have significant elements that are highly anti-Western, and that you are trying to bring the best Western ideas to these nations, I assumed that your oath included references to Europe and the USA as an effort to bring the West and the Third World closer together.

You got the right assessment of the situation but it didn't make me feel so good. I was not upset, I was just feeling bad. I guess I felt that respect for Rights of Man , British Common Law, Secularism etc. ought to be universal and more importantly its heritage and genesis and evolution from the west ought to be recognized and felt most strongly here in the west. Am I wrong in feeling that way? without ofcourse engaging in any cultural chauvinism.

[arthurshiraz]

I'm not sure how you can word these better, but as they stand, would you be willing to swear your allegiance to something you only have a vague idea about? I certainly could not.


Yes hence my queasy feeling about the last two lines though Acorns is right. What I want to do is bring the rest of the world upto speed with the rennaissance and the enlightenment and I want to acknowledge the birth place of ideas like secularism and human rights (America and Western Europe). Need help with the wording please.


How would this be achieved? Are you planning on raiding Churches, Temples and Mosques every day and liberating any child found within?

Aha! the method shall remain a mystery. Do you think the founding fathers had objections to "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; " It may have made some slave holder uneasy but it passed. But this line was a ticking time bomb that exploded into the civil war. That is the power of good virtuous lines like the above.

Do you agree with this or not? "I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination and physical abuse and mutilation."

If you do , that is all that matters. History and the masses of people will take care of its implementation. First lets create our imaginary utopia then we can talk about implementation :) Just like the founding fathers and Lincoln etc.