Emirate of Silence

The Richard Dawkins Foundation - no, this is not going to be a long, dogmatic rant repeating the oft-told arguments against religion - writes about the reasons, or pseudo-reasons, behind the Taliban shooting of 14-year old student and - yes - blogger Malala Yousufzai. Allegedly, the girl had openly expressed dislike for the movement in question and praise for secularism and, wow, president Barack Obama of the United States. Those among her ranks in other countries, particularly the somewhat older who have only then attained the preferential degree of insight and confidence in forming one's own opinions, express more profanic and outrageous statements every day. We may not all share the motives behind the current counter-insurgency in Afghanistan which, like most conflicts in this dull and beautiful corner of the world have drained a multitude of lives, mostly of young boys, the same as in the days of Genghis Khan's extermination war against Khwarezm, Alexander's campaign to subdue Sogdia and Bactria and Cyrus' fatal fall-out against the Scythians. However, those of us who believe in the invisible, non-material order or prime mover called Enlightenment may share a common outrage such a blatant attack on a free and prosperous society which no country will ever achieve under the auspices of such irrational, grim, scheming brutes who have with this vile attempt on a courageous and independent spirit once more, and more loudly declared their true and unerasable colours. My preferential counter-statement would be, adhering to these principles of Enlightenment as I claim, what this justification would do to us once universalized. What if each one of us were given the right to put a cap of lead - preferrably two, so I won't have to countenance the kind of person I may have in mind ranting any more jibberish from a hospital bed - into every skull that expresses contempt or praise for that which you consider paramount or unacceptably repulsive? In the approximate words of John Stuart Mill; No definition of liberty was ever so monstrous, no act would it not justify to penalize against, except maybe that of undisclosed thoughts without ever uttering them.

Think about it. "She did no like us, she no like god, she like Barack Obama, so she should die." Excuse? A well-meaning lift, a cocked gun and a bump in the road ("Man, there ain't no bumps") would make a less insulting explanation for having shot an unarmed civilian, let be a child, in the face. The mere fact that these rebels (making a disgrace of that word as well) are named from the Arab word for student (talib) is just deplorable.

I do bet many Pakistanis and Afghans have more or less undisclosed thoughts - about the Taliban or the warlords, of Karzai's and Zardari's positively corrupt, non-secular and rather authoritarian governments (fortunately at an end shortly, though their successors are not like to prove better), of the West, the East, of their own vision and preferences for a future country, most of which, I would bet, contains a degree of peace and want of this fear of disclosing their thoughts. Very few of us truly desire restaints on thought, though many may have desire not to hear opinions they do not share, or even approve of measures of violence against such fixed chains of sounds or dots of colour (words and images). Open attacks, verbal and physical and sometimes unprovoked, on everything from Gay Pride marches (in Kabul... 2034?) to corresponding nationalist and xenophobic gatherings in so-called free countries most gravely underline this fact. All of us do not favour the same system of government no more than we share a similar view of the best way of living, though I would insist on the success of democracy (or no government at all), but very few openly rant against this precious and seemingly omnipresent freedom of thought, at most at an "unnecessary" fraction of its expressions.

Malala being hoisted into an ambulance, in Pakistan. The facial expressions of her carriers (all male, it seems) never cease to impress me.

Another, more successful case of woman-targeting, from the time when the Taliban ruled all of Afghanistan but the far North. The death of "Zarmina", accused of killing her husband, was unexpectedly publicized. Lately, Wikileaks has brought similar attention to coalition attacks on civilians.

The Taliban, not alone in this but perhaps more than other forces in the current state of chaos which has wrapped its arms about rural Afghanistan and much of Western Pakistan, desires an emirate of silence and fear, and will arguably stop short of few measures to realize such a state of affairs. Though both coalition and insurrectionist forces try to harness the liking of the populace they mean to shape along their ideological current, they will fail. But as the retreat of NATO and ISAF forces have already commenced and will have reached something of a goal in just two years, with Taliban forces multiplies in strength compared to a decade ago, when the country was freshly delivered from the arms of indiscriminately suppressive, mysterious and technophobic autocrat Mohammed Omar and his al-Qaeda allies, the question of the future is haunting. When the Taliban ruled the nation from Kandahar, it is said, streets South of the frontline were fairly safe from bombings and drive-by shootings and children such as Malala were not sprayed with sulfuric acid in the face as they went to school. But those who commit those acts of terror are prescribers of such an order, to the same ends, and to the greater end of a society where their perverse ranting and rambunctuous piety will not be broadcasted to foreign television sets (none were allowed under their rule). Under the Taliban, girls did not openly attend school, nor did most boys; nor did their elders, the women, compose part of Parliament, nor was there a Parliament worthy anything of the definition, or less so than the Etàts-Generáux of l'Ancien Regime in France, which, as we who recognize the figure 1789 know, did prove an actual restraint to King Louis' kingly powers. The Taliban leadership recognize no such restraint - being absent in their final revelation to their favorite illiterate businessman - only the sanction to rule by any means by an all-knowing, omnipotent dictator of their own, which allegedly has chosen them, of all people, to exact the exact form of government and code of morality they have subscribed to. Are they sure this god doesn't want his little soldiers to try shoot themselves first, in the mouth, at a set date and time, to see if they are really destined to cleanse the chosen lands from the infidels, domestic and foreign? For a true martyr, prepared of sacrifice when there is nothing to gain in the currency of a maimed or dead enemy, it would make a fair test. And, my fair guess, resolve the region of a lot of obstacles in a heartbeat. Make sure to set it at automatic, so you don't screw up as when you take aim at young teenagers' faces. Faces you shouldn't look at, according to your sacred mores. Remember?

Our desire to withdraw responsibility from inflicting further crimes against the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not ensure a sustainable future, although it may appear obvious from previous and numerous examples that a country cannot be altered against its will by external forces. The Taliban is to a great extent such an external force, a crusade for willing martyrs and faithfuls, who provides most of those in the movement who can actually read the Quran; doubt it not. The brutes will not cease to torture and torment adults and children, men and women to achieve and uphold the codes of conduct prescribed by their imaginary celestial order even if every single foreigner leaves or subscribes his arms to the local government. I would for one not be willing to stand there once the current régime will dissolve. But it must, and it will, though preferrably when these child-murdering profligates has been weakened in their ranks to the edge of a Humpty Dumpty fall. Their attempts and excuses are pathetic, their only strength lying with the common human groundwork of superstition and preference for anything but no-order. Decisively, the hands and mouth of the Taliban golem has screwed up, big time. It is for those of every colour, caste or creed who desire something else than their preferred emirate of silence to seize the moment.

For Malala's comments of a 14-year old's life under Taliban rule, you find them here.

As I write this post, I find that more Syrian refugees who have supposedly faced torture in Assad's abattoirs, and their children are denied even temporary asylum in Sweden, and may even be sent back if other authorities deny them the protection of being where the hydra cannot reach you. I also find that within shortly, employees of Umeå better brush their teeth free of snuff and other dark, similar substances before going to work, unless they want to be penalized. Apparently your mouth, teeth and tongue are not your property if you work for my city (well, its schools, to be fair) under elected, secular authorities. Deplorable.

The Best of the 44

It is now only twenty-two days until the result of the presidential election will be hours from being announced. Twenty-two; half a day for every president - a full for Cleveland - at least until the 20th of January. It is in my opinion unlikely that the world's most prosperous and powerful democracy will have it's fourty-fifth name... yet. Here are some of my favourites from the fourty-four. I should admit I have been careful with wartime leaders and the ones with lifetimes protruding into my own, in favour of a balanced five. Whatever that is.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)

Rhetorically astute and with a brilliant wit, the first president to overthrow an incumbent president (and friend) through an election - self-labeled the "revolution of 1800" - was as sharp as his eight years were revolutionary. Authoring the Constitution of 1789, the oldest currently in practice, the Virginia Francophile and first Secretary of State pioneered the young republic by his Republican Party (now the Democrats) and unduly, in present-day terms, fought for the rights of individual states and citizens against the pressure for anti-civil rights Alien and Seditions Acts and a strong central government. Whereas his qualities in these matters are pondered by his apparent support for slavery - he owned many and bred a child with coloured servingwoman Sally Hemmings but denounced the institution as a "hideous blot" - and the factual that his administration was in fact not as passive and libertarian as he might have argued, he remains the most compelling and important of the Founding Fathers and early leaders of the United States.

The Louisiana purchase of 1803 expanded the still young republic far westward to twice its size, for a very modest price. Jefferson distrusted cities, party politics and concentrated power, and when once asked about the rights to religious worship and protection, he famously remarked there would always be a "wall of separation" between legislation and religion, setting a then-unremarked national standard enforced by the Bill of Rights his Secretary of State James Madison wrote, now an example for secular democracies everywhere (eventually reaching Sweden on January 1, 2000).

Like John Adams, he died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1826. Added together, the two men reached the age 173.

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897)

The only man with a "full day" in my previous pun, Cleveland faced election thrice on the Democratic ticket, and won the people every time. Due to the electoral college's infamous preference for less populated states, he was ousted in favour of "icicle" Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888, but returned four years later with resurging popularity, to a fault. Consequently, he is the only of the fourty-four to be two presidents in one. The only Democrat to rule for decades in either direction, Cleveland was renowned for his honesty, his patience and a principled sense of justice. A simple man who grew to govern New York, the most populous state was one of a few presidents to marry while in the White House and ominiously referred to as the "Hangman of Buffalo", due to his simple origins as a Sheriff in Buffalo, New York. He was considerably more lenient to external enemies, and against the trend of the day opposed the campaigns to annex the Hawaii islands and the Indian territories. A bachelor and the father of an illegitimate child, he was the only President to take a wife in the White House shortly after.

Cleveland would work 18 hours a day, wrote practically all his speeches, and despite a generally Republican-dominated Senate returned a sense of strength and executive authority to the White House after a series of weak administrations. Nevertheless, his conservative and passivist outlook, coined by his outspoken notion that "the people should support the government, the government should not support the people" and steadfast opposition to the egalitarian notion of gold-and-silver currency earned him the same fate as Harrison when the Panic of 1893 dealt a crushing blow to his economic doctrines and blistered all chances for a third term. He was succeeded on the 1896 ticket by former Populist leader (and bimetallist) William Jennings Bryan, who also became (a less successful, but more influential) three-time nominee.

When he left the White House, and politics in March 1897, Cleveland's regenerated Democratic Party had once more been revitalized into a potent political force, if yet under principles were very different from his own. Like Jefferson and much unlike Bryan and most of the succeeding leadership of his party, Cleveland was a slavish constitutionalist with little regard and much scorn for economic and social intervention into common Americans' lives, which during his exile earned him much respect restored only after his death. The end of his second, half-catastrophic term saw rapid economic recovery from the crisis which had ousted him, but nothing could blister the gallant character of principles and integrity which alone which had secured his historic second presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

Roosevelt was never "supposed" to be president. A reformer within the predominant Republican Party, the widowed ex-cowboy and Harvard alumnus, this asthmatic turned boxer and skinnydipper was elected Governor of New York, just as Cleveland, after fleeing his successor McKinley's administration to help liberate Cuba from the Spanish yoke. The far more conservative leadership of the party tried to use Roosevelt's success against him by nominating him for McKinley's Vice President in 1900, only to find a hideous backfire a year after when a gun-wielding anarchist's bullet elevated Roosevelt to the job they had tried to keep him away from. Out with his family on a picnic when McKinley unexpectedly died, Roosevelt was inaugurated during his race home and reigned for a near two full terms, as astute and well-read as he was unyielding in a quest to smash oligopolistic trusts, earning the nickname "Trust-Buster", worked towards federal customer protection legislation (most notably in the meat industry), strengthened the presidency and celebrated the United States' first Nobel Price in 1906 after negotiating peace between Japanese and Russian empires. He coined the terms "White House" and "west wing" and fought the cause of environmental conservation and the "square deal", favouring labour over big business. Abroad, he took equally unorthodox measures when intervening in Panama to  secure its independence in exchange for a U.S.-controlled Panama Canal.

Despite massive resistance against his reformist policies, he won a stunning re-election in 1904 against conservative Democrat Alton Parker and might have been the first to see a third term in office had he not chosen to instead nominate his Minister of War William Taft in 1908. Taft was safely elected, but was either usurped or taken willingly by the more conservative elements and less respondent to his purposed mentor's influence. Despite continued anti-trust-legislation and concessions to labour, the pro-tariff Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 and a meek foreign policy caused Roosevelt to seek the nomination again in 1912. He failed, but achieved a bitter vengeance by catalyzing progressive Republicans into a party of his own making, the Progressive Party (nicknamed "Bull Moose" after Roosevelt was infatally shot before a campaign speech in Wisconsin, noting to the audience with blood dripping from his shirt that it took "more than one bullet to kill a Bull Moose" and that he did not need immediate medical attention). Roosevelt and Taft ran rather distant second and thirds to Democrat and Klansman Woodrow Wilson, who hence won 40 states, most of the North and the presidency with a stark 40 % of the vote. After retiring to pursue other interests, including climbing Mount Blanc, Roosevelt announced intentions to return before the 1920 election, with a stroke-ridden and nearly mute Wilson was facing retirement, but died in early 1919 due to an infection caused during an expedition in the Amazonas. His son, Theodore Roosevelt Junior, might have planned to follow him when riddled with German bullets on Omaha Beach, Normandy twenty-five years later, ending what might have become a great political dynasty and the future of progressive Republicanism.

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)

Coolidge did not live for laughter, nor power, but might have had a record ten-year administration - for a Republican. His decision not to might be what saved him a legacy of shadow-coated gold. When the Republicans regained the White House in 1921 (the first after womens' suffrage had reached all 48 states) spearheaded by popular maverick Warren Harding, times were about to change. Unfortunately, Harding had been as tough and swift-spoken a fighter (he was accused both having African American genes and membership card in the Ku Klux Klan) as he was insufficient as a leader. Scandal-ridden, tired and keen for gambling (and possibly some of the many drinks he had helped to ban in 1919), his sudden death might have been what saved the Republican Party. Coolidge assumed the presidency in his parents' dining room in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, sworn in before the local press by his clerk father in the light of a kerosene lamp before returning to a second, formal inaugural (he was, by 1925, the only one to have a third) and shoulder an aching nation. In the wake of fiscal unrest and the devastating Teapot Dome Affair, which sent the Secretary of Interior into prison, he reshuffled the cabinet and cut federal income taxes (before Wilson an unknown phenomenon during peacetime) from draconian war-time rates to a top 25 %, restricting their use to the very wealthiest. For all these measures he was accounted more than anyone else for the "Happy 20's", and the tremendous growth that renewed confidence in the American spirit - and the world. He spoke very little and, like the Founding Fathers, cared even less for the affairs of other countries, but dispatched troops to China and Nicaragua to protect American interests and invoked, rather in the spirit of Wilson, a lenient and cooperative policy towards the German government, which earned his Vice President Charles Dawes the Peace Price. Both racists abroad and domestic lost much of their influence during his term. A conservative radical of Lincoln's brand, he unusually denounced the notion of the United States as "white man's land" with a penchant for equal opportunity and value, embodied in the granting of citizenship to all Native Americans, yet gave in to pressure for the very strict Immigration Act of 1924, effectively ending nearly a century of massive influx from East and West. The same year, he won re-election with more votes than the Progressive and Democratic contenders together and took every state but Wisconsin outside the South. Work on Mount Rushmore commenced with federal aid in 1927, and perhaps his face would have deserved more than any other to be the model of a fifth. When leaving the presidency in 1929, the budget deficit had been eradicated, federal revenue had more than doubled to nearly one trillion dollars a year, and peace seemed to rule. If accepting the nomination for an unprecedented third term in 1928, he would have had it. Coolidge is dubiously denounced for laying the groundwork, if yet unknowingly, for the stock market crash in September 1929, six months after his departure, which reversed nearly all his policies and the tide to a much darker one. Still, a flamboyant renaissance came with the "Reagan revolution" of the 1980s, which despite their numerous differences played the "supply-side economics" on the success of Coolidge. Reagan's years, however, saw much turmoil, domestic and abroad, and ended with a record deficit, and also saw the Republicans lose the race for the minorities which had once been solely theirs.

John Kennedy (1961-1963)

He was by no means perfect, but in two years inspired impression and hopes of far more. Nobody, not even Franklin Roosevelt might have reshaped the outlook of the Democratic Party in a more profound way. Among record-young Kennedy's first calls - he was 43, slightly older than Roosevelt at 42, but by far younger than the latter at the time of his actual election at 46 - was to push the economy, space race and cause for freedom on the offensive, as well as an already prepared invasion of Castro's Cuba. He promised, like his less audacious and vital opponent Richard Nixon (whom he defeated with a few thousand votes in swing states Texas and Illinois) to move towards civil rights for all Americans, with a charismatically broadcasted interest to move the world in the same direction. When the two met in the first televised debate in late 1960, together a mere 90 years old, it was indeed a sign of a new decade. Republicans had secured voting rights independent of colour or "previous condition of servitude" in 1870, but new voting rules, most notably poll taxes, literacy tests and "grandfather clauses" to exclude most whites from said qualifications had successively eliminated minority participation, ultimately ejecting the last African American congressman from Washington in 1901.

Kennedy's promise was to repeat the achievements of Lincoln to consummation, and he succeded - but did not live to see it. Though not as personally stringent; even in the White House, he sported numerous lovers and clotted policymaking by allegations of electoral fraud, supposed relations to organized crime and an undisclosed aching back (treated with amphetamine, amongst other substances), many Americans would bask in the same light when this courageous reformist secured a blodless détente with the Soviet Union in 1962, negotiating the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Cuba and Turkey. Whilst choosing not to act against the erection of the Berlin Wall, he compensated it to the better of his image in famous speech where he humiliously and humorously remarked he was a "Berliner", or a jam cookie, predicting the world would be united once more under a beacon of liberty and free-mindedness. He did not steer through an actual civil war, but could shoulder the flaps of a wartime leader when the union, and the Democratic Party, divided in spirit over his agenda for civil rights. When, like Lincoln, his skull was pierced by one of many an assassin's bullets during an open rally in Dallas in November 1963, the issue was less than a year from painful resolvement upon which Vice President and successor Lyndon Johnson famously remarked that the Democrats had lost the South "for a generation". A further, just as important bill, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, came to passage by massive Republican support in a time of unrepeated Democratic dominance and successful economic growth, all in the shadow of his never-ending flame. Even through massive oppsition to the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam, which Kennedy as much as Johnson and Nixon helped to escalate, his legacy would endure. For years the first and only Catholic president was indeed raised to a saint-like status, allegedly as the most admired and celebrated politician of his century.

Conducive Camus

For all of those who haven't yet read French author and Absurdist philosopher Albert Camus' work Reflections on the Guillotine (1957), a wonderfully connotatious title, I recommend preparations for doing so shortly. It might just be the best piece of debaucherous debating you've ever experienced. Among the best French writers that ever lived, Camus stopped short of slandering against nothing and nobody he didn't like, and once remarked famously to a friend and former Communist party comrade; "I'd defend your right to live under any circumstances, but if I face the firing squad you'll have to condone my murder." Or something of the kind. Extremely independent-minded, he argued vehemently against capital punishment in France, in 1957 (when the essay was published) the only democracy on the European continent to perform executions, and may well have contributed to steep the tide in favour of abolition. The last court-ordered beheading in the country, of another Algerian-born Frenchman, took place 20 years after Reflections was published, four years before President Mitterrand suspended the use of Madame Guillotine forever. There didn't seem to be an inch of sympathy for cold-blooded killers Camus was accused of vindicating in his ruthless quest to abolish executions, and this alone makes him, in my view, one of the last century's great debaters. I'd love to see his comments on the present carnage in his native Algeria's fellow ex-colony Syria, where the archangel of death for political convenience has made its presence known in every building block, in almost every shape. (For my opinions on that debauchery, and its persistent and typically national socialist-level use of the more primitive noose, see my second-to-last post.)

Wonderfully eloquent and brave. Albert Camus (1913-1960).

The final execution in France is announced. Hamida Djandoubi lost his head at 04.40 at Baumettes Prison, 20 years after Camus published Réflections sur la Guillotine. It was the last time the weight and blade held at disposal by the judiciary was let loose with fatal intent. Camus himself died in a crash less expected than the "months or years" he decried in 1960, locked within a framework of iron both more blunt and advanced, embodying into his last his typical forwardness. He lived neither to see Algeria's rise as an independent state but made his views abundantly clear, yet with a characteristic lack of dogmatism, in his masterpiece L'Etranger, whose eponymic protagonist faces the prospect of death imminent and eternal with glee. 

Syria's most cruel and abominable tyrant

In Showtime series The Tudors' third season, exiled clergyman and cardinal Reginald Pole grovels in tears before a crucifix in self-denial and melancholy after receiving word that King Henry VIII has tried and executed his mother and brother rather than commend his refusal to submit to Anglican church doctrines. His German Catholic mentor Otto von Waldburg (perhaps miscast, but brillantly so, by Max von Sydow) is called upon, and enters the room to comfort the younger priest of his convictions. "The King of England", he says in a brusque but wonderfully eloquent voice, "is the most cruel and abominable tyrant. There's no doubt now. He must be overthrown by force. Better that he should die, than risk the eternal damnation of all his subjects." (If not too wary about spoilers, you can see the clip here, if you jump to the spot labeled 2:20). Before leaving, he discloses his own horror to the protegé, of a sister who was brutally seized, raped and tortured to death by fellow German soldiers years earlier, perhaps even blaming himself for not being able to save her; "All of us have burdens to carry, Cardinal Pole."

In Henry's days, opposition (as well as the two wives he had beheaded on trumped-up treason charges) would have had more to fear from the second realm of damnation, the afterlife, where a cruel and abominable ruler, no matter how ungodly, may send you as well if managing to break you from the true faith. In the last year's more and more intensifying crackdown on opposition by the Syrian government, many soldiers of faith and liberty may have died most ignominiously believing that their torment was only about to start. I myself do not believe in such thing as torment following the irrevocable death of the senses called hell. "Hell", as French philosopher Sartre famously put it, "is other people." Never does this statement feel more accurate than when faced with the naked brutality of the social contract about to be broken by those molested in its name during many, many years of compliance. When about to break, Leviathan fights you off more fiercely and violently than ever before. Nonetheless, in this cruelty are the seeds of its own downfall. Assad, the Lion, has not been able to buy off his people with overnight fraction-measure reforms, not after half a century of submission to his Ba'ath Party, the only one still in power since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The only year without state of emergency has been the bloodiest so far, not counting the 1982 Hama revolt, shelled and riddled to dust most effectively by his uncle Rifaat to the cost of an unknown death toll, perhaps closer to 30,000. That accounts to five to ten Chilean military juntas, one to two Videla dictatorships, almost one Trujillo, two to ten percent of the casualties of Saddam's sanguinary rule in Iraq, which transformed old Mesopotamia into more of a makeshift abbatoir (though far more beautiful on the outside) whenever resistance arose at a larger scale. Half a Henry VIII, whose courts by some sources had 70,000 of his subjects executed (most, I should admit, for non-political crimes).
All in February 1982.

When we count the losses, it is possible indeed that the costs of this revolt have been far greater, in terms of human lives. The deeper, collective wounds in the Syrian soul and the infrastructure of the country is long since non-disputable. The Syrian cold, now as much a struggle for Assad's life as for his position ("When you play the game of thrones...") has most forcibly and ignominiously ejected tens of thousands of its own people, many after unspeakable pain and humiliation. Unlike the events of 1982, the toll keeps on expanding by several people as I write this post. A good motivation, I must admit.

There is little reason to believe that Turkey alone will bring about the end of what used to be a somewhat aligned partner in the region, now foes locked in a formal state of war. Backed by the European Union's ineffective and unsubstantiated defense treaty and NATO allies, should the shelling of innocent non-subjects of the tyrant continue, both these parties must consider their possible obligations to intensify the conflict and bring about its conclusion. Yesterday, Republican Mitt Romney took the opportunity to deliver another punch of optimism and opportunism at the Democratic Obama administration for failure to intervene with sufficient measures. With a respect for both parties' motives for their current course of action (as well as for the notion of the Founding Fathers not to intervene in the affairs of other countries - a notion shared by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson - which I respect and commend in principle) I fully concur with the message.

Syria is not Rwanda, and will not climb anywhere near such a degree of inhuman butchery within decades to come. Nor is its fairly united armed forces comparable with the ludicrous ones of Gaddafi's Jamahiriya, the air force in particular, though the Swedish one could have turned it into mush 40 years ago, in the late dawn of the Assads, the Alawites, and Hizb al-Ba'ath. But even for a greater effort, air superiority in favour of the Free Syrian Army might just as then prove the most effective way to turn the tide on the ground, and that any of Assad's major allies would openly support him in the skies is unlikely. Even for the liable fundamentalist leadership in Tehran, it would produce more problems their degree of reason would allow them to comprehend with at the moment, and if so, another setback might prove fatal to Supreme Leader Khamenei's position as well, should he choose to strike the first blow by further fuelling the case for more torture and torment of his Western neighbours.

Assad must be overthrown by force; there is no other option. The issue of whether it is our "responsibility" to intervene with deadly force I will not enter. To some such a solution might be uncomfortable, or even deadly; to others, a relief or even a blessing. The support here does not linger after that on the spot - the argument for intervention is stronger still than that against Gaddafi, for years a pet of pro-authority intellectuals and pragmatics, while the sordid eye doctor has failed to make such a moral case for his repressive rule, thus moving even deeper in the filth marked by the footsteps of father Hafeez. He might prove just as effective in breaking the back of the opposition, ranging from feminists and liberals to die-hard Islamists, all to the dismay of their mutual cause, and ours. If managing to rebalance himself in the saddle he will not be merciful, whatever diplomatic measure or embargo the United Nations might concoct at such a stage. The stage for action is now; it can never be yesterday.

The President of Syria is the most cruel and abominable tyrant. Any doubts left have perished; he must be overthrown by force. It will not be without risk or undisclosed consequences. But we have burdens to carry already, and the one building up as we ponder the facts and indulge in violent imagery might prove even harder to carry once the last blood has been spilled. Impartiality, as Thomas Jefferson may never have remarked, is always partial.

Postscript: Recognizing that I'm a bit glib on Henry's wives; Catherine, his fifth, may have been a real bitch and adulterous enough to mitigate any husband's wrath and disgust. In saying "trumped-up", I essentially say the case for a death sentence rested in the King's hands, and had little to do with the famously impartial English justice of the day.

Caesar in Caracas

My second-to-last whistleblower in slightly more evocative manner with a few improvs, for possible English-speaking readers.

Plato and Albania seem to stride like never-ending threads through this loom, making me speculate of what the wide-headed wrestled might have wanted to say of the political dichotomia of 2012 and of their most flamboyant voices.

This Sunday an election is held, not within the limits of Sweden, but for several reasons it is grateful that the struggle of Simon Bolivar's most important legacy, the Venezuelan presidency, has been observed even in the far North, as far in time from a general election we can reach. I have, quite a few times damned myself over the absence of a head of state appointed through such an election, a fallacy which might have been averted if Bolivar's forerunner, Francisco de Miranda, had remained in Stockholm in 1787 to accomplish a proper revolution here instead. Perhaps it would have been wise to decline such an offer, if not for any other reason with regard for the, from a post-colonial perspective more important struggle for liberation from the Spanish empire. Or perhaps because the choice of liberators tend to make its tracks, or wounds, in a nation's political legacy. When King Gustav III rode through the streets of old Stockholm in 1772 welcomed by the cheer of the throngs, having just unseated the unpopular, quasi-democratic Cap party president von Düben by force, his horse's hooves clattered at pace with Bellman's just composed Kung Gustaf's Skål (a patriotic rant designed to praise the royal coup d'etat) and the clamouring of the masses. Decades marred by partitioning partisan divisions and oligarchy, "parliamentary despotism", the abuses and misery of mercantilism, national submission and defeat and, well, "quarrel", was all to be swept away by the cloud of dust which emerged from the soldiers' boots. This equally quiet and loud march for Enlightenment, Liberation and National renewal was crowned 17 years later by a piece of paper named the Union and Security Act, in all but name restoring complete dictatorship and unfreedom of the press. In hindsight of this, I would likely have put my faith in Miranda in 1787, though the result could have been just as ominious - also for generations yet unborn.

When Nehru fought in silence for a more subtle revolution in British India he authored, by pseudonym, a critical article in 1937, describing his own possible takeover with these words; "In this revoutionary era Caesarism always stands at the door. Is it not possible that Jawahar (Nehru) might see himself as Caesar? ... He must be kept in check. We want no Caesars."

After Caesar's breath had succumbed to his wounds, inflicted by members of the legislature he had disempowered, Simon Bolivar would be the next to bear his title. Bolivar - El Libertador in Bolivia, the new-born country which, "as from Romulus, Rome", would bear its name for its creator. When he first marched through Peru, he was rather crowned, without a crown (in the best Caesarian manner) with the honorific El Dictador - a mistake his successors would correct, substituting the title for the less condemning Presidente. When the constitution of Venezuela was replaced in 1999 by recently elected popular hero, military, coup-maker and cleaningman Chavez, bane of the old corrupted bipartisan system, the name of El Libertador was now included in that of the country, though only the enemies of Chavez were to resurrect the now so infamous title of El Dictador for his self-described heir and successor. Only a week or so past, the prime Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, itself a key to the door of press freedom in the mid-1800s, referred to Presidente Chavez as... "dictator". The supportive voices are weakening within and outside the country, even after renewed strength when El Libertador's self-described successor was nearly ousted in a coup d'etat in the year 2002. For days, he considered exile in Cuba rather than remaining as a subject of an illegal government, but managed - like his preferred idol - burst the net around him, and was instead re-elected with tremendous support in 2006. The failure to transform Venezuela to a "socialist" as well as "bolivarian" republic and remove the poorly kept constitutional preclusions to his revolution in a referendum the following year was his first major setback. After a second attempt in 2009, now with the call for a socialist republic dropped, the constitution was amended with a slim margin. In the wake of this bitter vote, Venezuelans are divided in two major camps on this Sunday the seventh - for, or against, the Bolivarian revolution?

A master surveying a humble pupil?  

Plato scorned democracy, for a number of reasons. It preaches and demands equality in matters only a minority is blessed to understand; it paralyses those capable of acting in favour of good, like denoting doctors and generals to the consent of their patients and privates. It feeds greed, material inequality and atomism and allows sectarianism and self-interest to grow freely in defiance of an organic order where the interests of the nation, the people, the state are housed in the collective cynosure. It also has, Plato suggests, a tendency to birth tyrants just as cruel as any other order's through its natural hunt for an idol promising leadership and order, and might through these exercise just as ruthless torment against its enemies. The latter was confirmed for all eternity when Plato's master Socrates, having survived the courts and unsafe years of tyrants and oligarchies, was executed in a mock trial orchestrated by the resurrectors of democracy. Might Bolivar have become a victim of a Venezuelan democratic revolution, if not in body and life? It is unlikely that the opposite would have been true, had he lived to see such an order and wrestle with its absurdities. Most revolutions are said to bear Saturn's combination of lust and fear for their children, if yet only to such a degree their dignity and identity allows. Most liberators who turn power to the hands of the liberated tend to end their days in the powerless exile of private life, voluntarily or through force. Swedish liberals, much born by the desire for a parliamentary order by universal ballot and who ultimately achieved it (in 1918 for men, in 1919 for women) now live in the emasculated state caused by their long-sought child. Apparently with no regrets.

When ballots are cast and counted on Sunday not only Bolivar's yet unknown successor is waiting in the wings; it is likely that the strong but molested remnants of a constitutional democracy which has remained lived fairly well through the ages - by Latin American standards - will accomplish a metamorphosis shortly if the Bolivarian revolution is allowed to continue at its current course. Freedom House's report on the democratic accomplishments (as well as un-accomplishments), available to everyone capable of reading this right here, speaks of an increasingly restrained form of freedom of press, a separation of powers which has been most thoroughly dislocated beneath a skin of formality, of courts stuffed and packed with political appointees (hardly an area where Sweden is anything close to a good example, if yet never worse than our preciously kept parliamentary principles) and a legislature cropped and cut to a house of sheep more austere in its bleating against a formally separate and competing presidency for every day. The second to last time a parliamentary election was held opposition noticed its chances to boycott the quasi-democratic assembly and Chavez' "Movement for the Fifth Republic" ended with 116 out of 167 seats. Since 2010 the partition more sharply follows a proportional example; 5.3 million in favour of the oppositional Mesa de la Unidad Democratica against 5.4 for the all-governing Partido Socialista Unido, or 65 seats against 98. A slight lead is preciously rewarded - in London, in Caracas.

Freedom of the press is by most standards the worst on continental American soil, if yet much ahead of Cuba's - in whose papers I have relished myself (in Spanish as well as the English edition printed for foreigners), though not much for their fastidiously watered-down contents. Unfortunately, there is little division among critics of which way the state's stranglehold of oppositional media is heading. Radio and TV broadcasts have been boycotted and shut down by more or less well-meaning means of coercion and violence, and since the sympathisers of such oppositional voices have grown lately in spite of El Presidente's measures, hundreds standard-bearers of the revolution have been armed and organized into an alternate army within the state. There is every reason to question, with a certain degree of humility, when Freedom House now classifies the Venezuelan democracy with a 5 out of 7 label in both categories; political and civil rights (1 is best, 7 worst, and just ten years ago the former category rested at a sober 3). Sweden, and yes, I have checked it, is measured at a 1, perhaps not so evocative given that Italy, corrupt and violent to the gills in comparison, shares the same brand, the republic which the account of Lars Ohly (former chairman of the Left Party of Sweden) recently denounced in an indigned tweet as just as undemocratic as Venezuela. Or, perhaps, Venezuela was ambiguously upheld to be "just as democratic" as Italy. One should argue of senseless digits; after all, it is the course of politics if you are in the right place to exercise it with impunity, but no mind which is soberly read on the demands of the EU and the European Council regarding constitutional principles and human rights and liberties could ever, ever deny that Italy, one of the founders of the union, could be accepted as a continued member if the political situation resided in such a state that a notoric bolivarian wants to put it. It is shameful, ignorant notion which to the furthest extent denies the danger and lack of dignity - and in that, reports from Reporters without Borders, the United Nations, Amnesty International, and every independent non-governmental organization for human rights worthy of that description - in Venezuela's course in this area in the last years; ironically when the American principle of separation of powers appeared largely safe from demagogic militarymen with a timid love for many and direct re-elections and extensive terms in office, with Cuba and Haiti as major, and for this much renowned exceptions. Freedom of the press has also ran into a brick wall of opposition from the apparatus of government - have I failed to mention that? - with independent TV and radio shut down and instruments for such communication confiscated, sometimes with very high fines as thanks for the silenced broadcasting.

When the bulk of the opposition announced Henri Capriles Radonski as its candidate this spring the self-described bannermen of the people and state-run media outlets did not hesitate long before praise and well-wishes such as a "traitor", "fascist", "pig", "homosexual" as well as "sionist imperialist" or a similar sound of bosh hailed over the 38-year old Jewish-bred lawyer. I can only with a certain precaution find it in my values to support the largely unknown, fairly unexperienced underdog governor who on Sunday may be the end to the possibly loudest and certainly most long-reigning leader of the Western hemisphere. Unless Chavez may choose to adapt to a reborn democratic constitution, following the example of his hero and like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua - then a young, lively, fast-mouthed revolutionary, now far above the midst of his lifespan, lightly obese and timidly conservative, not least in the notorious question of abortion, which the Sandinistas have elected to resolve in favour of the still influential (for a secular, republican part of the world) Catholic Church. Perhaps it would be preferrable. The fact that either of the two would brusquely disrupt the bolivarification of what was not so long ago the continent's perhaps richest and most well-respected democracy would by many, inside and outside of Venezuela, be hailed as a relief of sublime and irreplacable proportions. An un-Caesarian, un-Bolivarian notion, I admit. Who of us (outside the Bolivarian republic) can today account for leaders and liberators such as Isaias Angarita, Rafael Caldera and Romulo Betancourt? I plead guilty.

Colourful in the midst of grayness - Christopher Hitchens (second from the right) visiting Venezuela in 2008. Do I see the same gaze as in Bolivar's painted eyes? Hear his loud and well-articulated commentaries on Hugo Chavez, and his non-American friends here.

I will close with a few words of a man who might have been one of them, had he lived today to see the accomplishments of the second Libertador;

"Is there a loftier humanism than socialist humanism which, in 35 years, doubles the life expectancy of the entire population of a country?"

Mehmet Shehu, Head of Government of Albania, in 1979
Liquidated by the secret polise DSS in 1981
Posthumously a fascist, traitor, suicide and an agent of the KGB, CIA and the Yugoslavian secret service, UDBA.

Para el pueblo venezolano grandes, en perpetua admiración y esperanza.

Caesar i Caracas

Platon och Albanien tycks löpa som oupphörliga trådar genom denna vävmaskin, vilket får mig att återigen undra vad den bredhuvade brottaren haft att säga om 2012 års politiska dikotomier och deras mest flambojanta röster.

På söndag är det val, inte i Sverige, men av flera skäl är det tacksamt att kampen om Simon Bolivars för nu levande sydamerikaner mest betydelsefulla arv, den venezolanska presidentposten, har uppmärksammats även i det fjärran Norden, så långt från ett riksdagsval som vi kan komma. Jag har några gånger förbannat mig över avsaknaden av en i allmänna val tillsatt statschef i Sverige, något som möjligen kunde ha avhjälpts om Bolivars föregångare Francisco de Miranda stannat i Stockholm 1787 och hjälpt till att åstadkomma en verklig revolution här istället. Kanske hade det varit vist att avstå från en sådan inbjudan, om inte annat av hänsyn till den ur ett postkolonialt perspektiv mer betydelsefulla befrielsekampen från Spanien. Eller kanske för att valet av befriare ofta sätter sina spår i ett lands politiska arv. När Gustav III red genom gamla stans gator 1772 till folkmassornas triumf efter att ha avsatt den impopulära kvasidemokratiska mösspresidenten von Düben klappade hovarna i takt med Bellmans för tillfället komponerade Kung Gustafs skål och folkmassornas jubel. Årtionden av söndrande partistrider, oligarki, riksdagsdespotism, merkantilismens övergrepp och misär, nationell underkastelse och käbbel skulle städas undan i det makadam som sveptes upp. Den långa kampen för Upplysning, Befrielse och Nationellt välstånd kröntes 17 år senare, ironiskt nog franska revolutionens och president Washingtons första år, genom Förenings- och Säkerhetsakten som i allt utom namn återinförde diktatur och pressofrihet. Med bakgrund i detta hade jag föredragit att sätta mitt lit till Miranda 1787, även om resultatet kunde ha blivit lika ödesdigert - och desto mer långvarigt.

När Nehru i all tysthet kämpade för en tystare revolution i brittiska Indien författade han 1937 under pseudonym följande ord om sitt eget framtida maktövertagande; "I denna revolutionära epok står Caesarismen alltid vid dörren. Är det inte möjligt att Jawahar kanske ser sig sjäv som Caesar? ... Han måste kontrolleras. Vi vill inte ha några Caesarer."

Sedan Caesar dragit sina sista andetag var Bolivar den näste som skulle bära hans titel. Bolivar - El Libertador, som han kallades i Bolivia, det nyfödda land som "likt Romulus' Rom" skulle bära sitt namn efter Libertador Bolivar. I Peru, i bästa caesariska manér, bekläddes han som El Dictador. Någon av hans snara efterträdare snappade upp misstaget och korrigerade det till det mer statsmannalika Presidente. När Venezuelas grundlag 1999 av den nyvalde folkhjälten, militären, kuppmakaren och nydanaren Chavez, det gamla korrumperade partisystemets baneman, ändrades för att inkludera El Dictadors namn i landets bestod denna detalj, även om den gamla titeln återupplivats på senare år av Chavez' fiender. För någon vecka sedan omnämnde Aftonbladet skrämmande nog Chavez som "diktator". Men de stödjande rösterna inom som utanför landet har tveklöst mildrats, även om de fick ny kraft när El Libertadors gunstling själv utsattes för ett kuppförsök 2002 och i flera dagar övervägde exil på Kuba framför att kvarstå under en inhemsk olaglig regim. Likt sin förebild lyckades han spränga nätet, och omvaldes med storslaget stöd 2006. Misslyckandet att i en folkomröstning ytterligare ett år senare omvandla Venezuela till en "socialistisk" såväl som "bolivariansk" republik och undanröja de sista konstitutionella hindren för sin revolution misslyckades var det hans första otvetydiga motgång. Efter ett nytt försök 2009, nu utan krav på omvälvning till en socialistisk republik, ändrades grundlagen med knapp marginal, och det är i detta kölvatten som delar venezolanerna i två större läger inför söndagens val. För - eller emot - det bolivarianska projektet?

Läromästaren?  

Platon avskydde demokratin, av flera skäl. Den prioriterar jämlikhet i något som endast en minoritet är välsignad att förstå, den lamslår de som är förmögna att handla för välstånd, likt krav på demokratisk konsensus i operationssalen eller på slagfältet. Den gror girighet, ojämlikhet och atomism och gynnar särintressen framför en organisk ordning där nationens, folkets, statens egentliga intressen ligger i det kollektiva blickfånget. Dessutom har den en tendens att föda minst lika brutala tyranner genom sin naturliga jakt på ledargestalter, och kan genom dessa väl visa sig minst lika skoningslös mot sina fiender. Det senare bekräftades med betryggande marginal när läromästaren Sokrates, som överlevt tyranner och oligarker, avrättades av demokratins förkämpar. Hade Bolivar kunnat bli den venezolanska demokratins offer, om än inte rent fysiskt? Det tycks osannolikt att tro på motsatsen. De flesta verkliga revolutioner sägs äta sina barn, om än med en sådan mildhet (eller hårdhet) som deras identitet tillåter. De flesta frihetskämpar som överlämnar makten till de befriades händer brukar sluta sina dagar i privatlivets mjuka men obemärkta exil. De svenska liberalerna, som i mångt och mycket föddes genom kampen för rösträtt och ledde förverkligandet denna generationslånga dröm (för män 1918, kvinnor 1919) har i högsta grad skadeskjutits av sitt eget projekt. Till synes utan ånger.

När rösterna läggs på söndag och räknas är det inte enbart Bolivars efterträdare som ska tillsättas; det är mycket sannolikt att den konstitutionella demokrati som klarat sig relativt väl - med latinamerikanska mått - kommer att utvecklas till något helt annat om den bolivarianska revolutionen fortgår i sin nuvarande form. Freedom Houses rapport om den demokratiska utvecklingen i landet, som ni kan läsa här, talar om en allt mer åtstramad form av pressfrihet, en maktdelning som i allt utom namn satts ur spel, om politiskt tillsatta domstolar (en fråga där Sverige knappast är en förebild, men åtminstone inte sämre än vår väl fungerande parlamentarism) och en nedbantad legislatur som gjort ytterst lite för att markera sin självständighet mot en förment oberoende presidentmakt. Sist parlamentsval hölls såg oppositionen sin chans till bojkott mot den kvasidemokratiska församlingen och Chavez' parti slutade med 116 av 167 platser. Sedan 2010 är fördelningen mer proportionell; 5,3 miljoner för samlingspartiet MUD mot 5,4 för Chavez' Socialistiska Enhetsparti, eller 65 mandat mot 98. Det lönar sig att komma först - i London och i Caracas.

Pressfriheten är den sämsta på Amerikas fastland, om än betydligt bättre än Kubas. Dessvärre råder det föga oenighet om i vilken riktning det bär åt vad gäller statsapparatens strypgrepp om oppositionella medier. Radio- och TV-kanaler har bojkottats och stängts ned med mer eller mindre välvilliga våldsmetoder, och allt efter att El Presidente mött på en allt starkare opposition har hundratusentals väpnade fanbärare organiserats till en alternativ armé i staten. Det finns all fog att ifrågasätta med ödmjukhet när FH klassar den venezolanska demokratin med katastrofstämpeln 5 av 7 (mot år 2002, med 3/7 i fråga om politiska rättigheter). Sverige har en solid 1a; likaså det i jämförelse genomkorrumperade Italien, som kontot Lars Ohly i en argumentation på Twitter framhävde som minst lika odemokratiskt som Venezuela. Eller så var det kontentan att det var Venezuela som var minst lika demokratiskt. Man bör käbbla om siffror, det är politikens roll om man befinner sig på rätt ställe, men ingen som är nyktert påläst om EU:s och Europarådets krav på konstitutionella principer och mänskliga fri- och rättigheter torde förneka att Italien aldrig, aldrig skulle kunna accepteras som fortsatt medlem av Europeiska Unionen om situationen var så illa som en notorisk bolivariananhängare alltså vill få det att framstå. Det är ett skamfilat argument som i det grövsta förnekar faran och ovärdigheten - och i det även rapporter från reportrar utan gränser, FN, Amnesty och varenda oberoende människorättsorganisation värdig namnet - i Venezuelas kursriktning på området under de senaste decennierna - ironiskt nog när den amerikanska maktdelningsprincipen tycktes någorlunda säker från demagogiska militärer med böjelser för många och direkta omval och långa mandatperioder, med de notoriskt aktuella örepublikerna Haiti och Kuba som notoriska undantag. Pressfriheten har dessutom stött på omfattande bakslag - har jag nämnt det? - och oberoende TV- och radiostationer har avstängts och konfiskerats med miljonböter som tack för den avbrutna driften.

När merparten av oppositionen tillkännagav Capriles Radonski som sin presidentkandidat i våras tvekade varken folkets banérbärare eller de statsstyrda medierna länge innan fördömanden som "förrädare", "fascist", "gris", "homosexuell" och "sionistisk agent" haglade över den 38-årige judiskättade advokaten. Jag kan endast motvilligt finna det i mig att stödja den okände, politiskt oerfarne underdog som på söndag kan det vara slutet för västra Hemisfärens mest långvarige ledare. Om nu inte Chavez väljer att anpassa sig och återkommer som pånyttfödd demokrat för att åter presidera över en pånyttfödd demokratisk författning, som sin gelike Daniel Ortega i Nicaragua - då ung, viril och snabbkäftad gerillakämpe, nu långt över medelåldersstrecket, rundmagad och förvånansvärt konservativ, inte minst i den för de amerikanska demokratierna plägande abortfrågan, som sandinisterna för tillfället löst till den inflytelserika katolska kyrkans favör. Det är kanske att föredra. Att endera av alternativen så bryskt skulle avbryta bolivariseringen av det som för inte så länge sedan var Sydamerikas kanske rikaste och mest välrespekterade demokrati skulle av många mottas som en oersättlig lättnad. I sann ocaesariansk, obolivarisk anda. Vem av oss kommer ihåg storverk med namn som Isaias Angarita, Rafael Caldera och Romulo Betancourt?

Färgglad i det gråa - Christopher Hitchens (andra f.h.) i Venezuela 2008. Skymtar jag samma blick som hos Bolivar, ovan? Eftersom jag gillar hans kommentarer om utrikespolitik finner ni hans kommentarer om Chavez här.

"Finns det en visare humanism än socialismens humanism, som på 35 år fördubblar medellivslängden hos ett helt lands befolkning?"

Mehmet Shehu, ordförande i Albaniens ministerråd, 1979
Likviderad av säkerhetspolisen DSS 1981
Sedermera fascist, landsförrädare, självmördare och agent för KGB, CIA och den jugoslaviska säkerhetspolisen UDBA.

Nu vill jag inte hacka på humanismen (jag vill helst inte ens se det här som ett ideologiskt inlägg), endast på Shehus, al-Gaddafis, Lukasjenkas, Khameneis, Chavez' och alla likasinnades alla definitioner av humanism.

Vad är Religionsfrihet?

De senaste dagarna har genomfarits av en hård inre kamp. Hård är sannerligen inte ordet, men något tidsödande. Jag är numera av uppfattningen att religionsfrihet är något överflödigt, och med det menar jag inte att religiösa åsiktsyttringar eller avsaknad av detsamma är något som inte är nödvändigt att beskydda, inklusive med tvångsmakt, på samma grunder som all annan åsiktsyttring. Mitt dilemma beskrivs istället med en retorisk fråga; föreställ er ett öppet demokratiskt samhälle, med obegränsad (åtminstone till innehåll och budskap) yttrande-, åsikts-, mötes-, demonstrations- och rörelsefrihet men utan specifik rätt att utöva religion, och frambesvärj sedan att en eller flera individer tvingas eller förhindras delta i religiös verksamhet utan att nämnda rättigheter nagelfars.

Är det möjligt? Förvisso kan rörelsefriheten som bekant inskränkas även i en demokrati om en domstol så finner lämpligt efter (misstanke om) brottslig handling, men även en cell erbjuder rörelsefrihet från sängen till altaret, och varken litteratur eller (lågmälda) meningsyttringar berättigar ytterligare inskränkningar av den intagnes frihet; det tycker i alla fall inte jag. Om det kan betraktas som omöjligt, kan religionsfriheten då stämplas som rationellt oberättigad? Slutsatsen jag vill komma till på ett ungefär vore att, intellektuellt och med tiden möjligen också praktiskt, ersätta konceptet religionsfrihet (friheten till vad?) med den nästan lika kända devisen om det offentligas och spirituellas benhårda och kompromisslösas åtskillnad ("a wall of separation" med Jeffersons ord). För att undvika ett Moment 22 måste religion och tro nämnas i en sådan kontext att denna åtskillnad kan garanteras från första början - för vilket det kanske bästa exemplet formuleras i första författningstillägget i USA:s grundlag, händelsevis samma som ska garantera oreglerad åsiktsfrihet. Från en rationell synvinkel är det, emellertid, den enda eftergift jag kan rättfärdiga.

Tron används som ursäkt till åtskilligt, och inte endast i de delar av världen och samhället där den är ett imperativ. För er som är bekant med konceptet positiva och negativa rättigheter vill jag sammanfatta det som följande; religionsfrihetens alla negativa rättigheter finns samlade i de övriga fri- och rättigheter som vanligtvis nämns. Rätten till obegränsad åsiktsfrihet och kroppslig integritet, åtminstone från andra individer, gör det mycket svårt att förhindra en religiös ritual om inte misstankar om ett icke-religiöst betingat brott föreligger. Religionsfrihetens inte sällan åberopade positiva rättigheter utgör tvärtom ett bålverk mot just denna öppenhet och individens integritet. Rätten att jag avstår från att producera till avskyvärdhet gränsande förolämpningar om heliga ting eller avvisar villfarelser om gudomlig uppenbarelse, jungfrufödsel, profeter, änglar, vittror, orcher, Jultomten och så kallade heliga skrifter är ingen legitim rättighet. Rätten att utsätta en annan individ för omskärelse eller mindre oåterkalleliga religiösa riter på grundval av eget godtycke är inte en legitim rättighet. Rätten att bära av en spekulerad makt eller av denna godkända kulturella koder föreskriven klädsel eller än värre, påtvinga en annan individ till nämnda eftergifter när världsliga föreskrifter predikar motsatsen är inte en legitim rättighet. Religionen har inga fri- och rättigheter och ger inga sådana åt dess utövare. Till 1970 var motsatsen ett lagstadgat faktum i och med den svenska trosfridslagstiftningen. Den lever fortfarande kvar i form av föreställningen om religionens rätt och den respekt den kräver inför sitt eget väsen.

Utdrag ur mitt inlägg i ämnet på Historum.com:

What is freedom of religion?
My personal standard, until I have been taught another sense on the matter, is that the term "separation between state and religious matters" (including of legislation and minarets, for instance) is preferrable to "freedom of religion". Not that I do not respect the latter; it is not by accident that Hoxhaist Albania, the world's first Atheist state was one of the worst regimes of post-WWII Europe, possibly the very worst, which also persecuted vegetarians, for instance, by forcing workers and schoolchildren to consume pork in an inhuman attempt to enforce defiance of Muslim doctrines. But I am concerned whether law is to touch on the matter at all and consider faith a matter of special breed worthy a special brand of protection. Vegetarians, such as myself, are not protected in this special way, to play on an already given example, though it is implicit by other rights granted. Forced consumption of anything of a value repulsive to the consumer would be considered abuse at the very least (I do not even believe it has been tried at Gitmo), but it doesn't mean there ought to be a "freedom of diet".

Om lagstiftning ska vila på en sådan grund som jag just beskrivit bör dess roll i sammanhanget begränsas enbart till att markera separation (om än inte avstånd, i etisk bemärkelse) från det subjektiva, det metafysiska, det förment gudomliga. Religiösa ärenden ska i en sekulär kontext, liksom allt annat, hanteras med sekulära handskar och tänger. För om rätten att fritt utöva eller markera avstånd från en eller flera övertygelser eller doktriner inte respekteras är det inte enbart ett religiöst dilemma. Om däremot tro på en himmelsk diktatur och ordning kan tillförsäkra troende individer privilegier eller stöd som utan denna uppfattning inte tillerkänts så är det oförenligt med en sekulär grundlags principer.

Universella fri- och rättigheter klarar sig utmärkt utan religionens närvaro - den utgör däremot en, med rådande konsensus kring tro och vantro, utmärkt bastion för ytterligare övergrepp på mänskliga fri- och rättigheter. Mr Jefferson - build up that wall! Allt därutöver är endast eftergifter till kvarlevande spekulation om människans predikament som, emedan odödligare än människan själv, inte är ett argument.

Hela tråden finns på denna länk;

Och för er som tycker att hela resonemanget är bullshit, eller något som vann mig en gnutta sympati, här är fantastiska Vangelis.