Jim's Mailings

Getting Out of the Box

The Problem
"Washington — Iraq now evokes that old Jimmy Durante that song that goes, "Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go and still have the feeling that you wanted to stay?"
It's hard to remember when America has been so stuck. We can't win, and we can't leave.
The good news is that the election finished what Katrina started. It dismantled the president's fake reality about Iraq, causing opinions to come gushing forth from all quarters about where to go from here.
The bad news is that no one, and I mean no one, really knows where to go from here. The White House and the Pentagon are ready to shift to Plan B. But Plan B is their empty term for miraculous salvation.. "
The above paragraph was written in a column by the New York Times reporter, Maurine Dowd. I suspect it is a general sentiment here in Nov. 2006, when it seems like the Iraq War will continue without end. I doubt that her conclusion is correct, as I have heard perfectly well meaning politicians echo sentiment that a just solution will be found to this conflict. I propose to illustrate "a way out of the box." First, I introduce 'Out of the Box Thinking.' One instance is that proposed by former President Bill Clinton. "When you have a problem that is so complicated that there is no way out, remember that there is a simple, but wrong, answer to the problem. I have a feeling that some of these simple answers may have the makings of a genuine way out. I intend now to introduce one simple way.
I propose to insist that our government operate with close observance to the principle of Separation of Church and State. Jefferson, in a letter, suggested a "Wall between Church and State." The organization "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," have a great deal of experiecnce investgating incursions in the murky boundary, especially scrutinizing overlapping of church-state matters. One flagrant violation is the so-called 'faith-based initiative' that the current administration has promoted the last six years, in fact, has set up an Office of Faith Based Initiatives in the Interior Department, and staffed it. Another is an (one or more) established church, Christian Embassy, within the walls of the Pentagon, the UN, and also in the capitols of other states & countries. The list is long, but it can be stopped. In a landmark case in Dover, PA, the courts found that the school board had violated the first ammendment by establishing a system to teach a variety of creationism in the public school there, which the Surpreme Court had outlawed a number of years ago. This court found that the subject of "Intelligent Design" was just another form in new wording. But the worst cases are found in the Federal System, where there are now five of the nine members of the Supreme Court who belong to a single powerful church, that of Roman Catholicism.
My idea is that we can do little to settle obvious sectarian world-state disputes unless our own house is in order. To understand the historical prospective, I have chosen to introduce into the discussion, a topic presented in Western Civilization courses called "The Enlightenment."
I like to think of The Enlightenment consisting of first an apple hitting Isaac Newton on the head, followed much later by his construction of the Laws of Thermodynamics, a Theory of Gravitation, with mathematical formulas, then the creation of the calculus. Also, I think of Quakers, who tell themselves they are gifted by God with "Inner Light." these same Quakers who perfected, and paid for Public Schools, far before the same being taken over by the state.
I quote below from an historical summary, late in the 18th century, from the writer and 'Philosophe', Voltaire, made famous by his writings and his participation in Parisian Salons. It was near the end of the reign of Louis XV, and after two disasterous wars, which devastated France and impoverished its citizens, and which later resulted in the French Revolution.
"A whole order [the Jesuits] abolished by the secular power, the discipline of other orders reformed by this power, the divisions between the [jurisdiction of] magistrates and bishops, plainly reveal how much prejudice has been dissipated, how far the knowledge of government is extended, and to what degree our minds are enlightened. The seeds of this knowledge were sown in the last century; in the present they are everywhere springing, even in the remotest provinces. . . . Pure science has illuminated the useful arts, and these have already begun to heal the wounds of the state caused by two fatal wars. . . . The knowledge of nature, and the discrediting of ancient fables once honored as history; sound metaphysics freed from the absurdities of the schools: these are products of this age, and human reason is greatly improved.
'Philosophe', a cult of intellectuals in the Salons had by then, 1780, been replaced by a new culture of Phisiocrats led by Rousseau, and others, who had the opinion that Mother Nature (Phisio) should be and in fact was the ultimate ruler (crat) in this world. That there were deep political divisions in France at the time there can be no doubt, but the classes of society had produced a self-sufficient bourgeois-proletariat that could withstand opression of a ruling class, which had become largely indifferent to the misery of the common people.
In the centuries since then (and its Revolution), France has produced no less than six Republics, as well as a couple of Empires, monarchies and other odds and ends in a quest to find a just and sufficient government. Nonetheless, in the 18th century rival empires; Spanish, Portuguese, English, Russian, Ottoman, and Holy Roman, dominated the European landscape, envying each other and the glory of past empires like that of the Roman, Greek or Persian. The Seven Years War, which developed at the time the American Colonies were involved in the French and Indian Wars and no less affected than the inhabitants of Europe. In France, the Religious Wars (1660-1693) and the War of the Spanish Succession (early 1700's) were but a sequel to the Hundred Years War of the 15th and 16th centuries. Quite properly, Voltaire, Rousseau and others who inspired the Phisiocrats concluded that a secular power could further the cause of peace, in a world dominated by Empires vying for land and domination. Strangely, Americans think of the success of the American Colonies was largely due to the influence of 'Western Civilization" upon the flegling experiences in the hitherto savage American scene. It may be more proper to suggest that the idealized American Savage, worshiping a "Great Spirit" had more to do with Enlightenment and the evolution of secular authority in Europe(see above). The assumption of absolutist principles by Charles XII of Sweden also were striking evidence in France that "something was rotten in Denmark (& Sweden). Louis XIV had shown strong or strident absolutist tendencies, while his son, XV, seemed to seek a balance between historical fact and the Great Enlightenment that was all about him.
Rousseau brought the whole sovereignty issue to a head with his 1762 "The Social Contract." To Quote from Durant: "There is a social contract, says Rousseau, not as a pledge of the ruled to obey the ruler (as in Hobbes's 'Leviathan'), but as an agreement of individuals to subordinate their judgment, rights, and powers to the needs and judgment of their community as a whole. Each person implicitly enters into such a contract by accepting the protection of the communal laws. The sovereign power in any state lies not in any ruler —individual or corporate— but in the general will of the community; and that sovereignty, though it may be delegated in part and for a time, can never be surrendered."
In the main, Americans who were dedicated to the spirit of Revolution, were less inclined to favor the strife that expansion of Religious Sects had generated in Europe. However the echo from the European bretheren (from Rousseau) inspired a rebellion which still seems enduring around the world. These leaders were in the main, Diests, joined together, not by sectarian principles but a novel spirituallity much like that enjoyed in the Parisian Salons. Curiously, a similar inspiration among American Quakers was held suspect, the latter being required to give a loyalty oath to maintain citizenship in the new Republic. Many of these, who forswore oaths, were deported elsewhere, mainly Canada.
English Law was revered, especially the idea of a Constitution, which was held supreme, nonetheless, not in writing. In Virginia that mistake was not to be tolerated, where the House of Burgesses, taking the lead from George Mason, issued the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, just before publication of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. In the book "George Mason - Constitutionalist" by Helen Hall, one is helped to understand what was desired in the Revolutionary effort, then being conducted by General Washington around Boston, and immediately in New York. This document (below) presents the intent of America's founding fathers even more explicit than the Federalist Papes of Jay, Madison & Hamilton.
Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776
THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS p.135
He (Mason) reached Williamsburg on May 17; he was immediately added to the committee which had been appointed three days before to prepare a declaration of rights and constitution. In membership the committee was an omnibus. Under Archibald Gary's chairmanship were gathered thirty-four men of such contrasting personalities as Bland and Henry, Carrington and Read, Cabell and T. Lewis, Thomas Ludwell Lee and Robert Carter Nicholas, Dudley Digges and Bartholomew Dandridge. Meriwether Smith was one of the original members; Madison, like Mason, was added upon arrival.
Mason was decidedly dubious of the value of some of his colleagues; he sat down that very day to write to Richard Henry Lee urging him to come back from Congress, on the grounds that his participation in the forthcoming deliberations was indispensable:
"After a smart fit of the gout, which detained me at home the first of the session, I have at last reached this place, where, to my great satisfaction, I find the first grand point has been carried nem. con., the opponents being so few that they did not think fit to divide or contradict the general voice. Your brother, Col. T., will enclose you the resolve. The preamble is tedious, rather timid, and in many cases exceptionable, but I hope it may answer the purpose. We are now going upon the most important of all subjects — government! The committee appointed to prepare a plan is, according to custom, overcharged with useless members. You know our Convention. I need not say that it is not mended by the recent elections. We shall, in all probability, have a thousand ridiculous and impracticable proposals, and of course a plan formed of heterogeneous, jarring and unintelligible ingredients. This can be prevented only by a few men of integrity and abilities, whose country's interest lies next their hearts, undertaking this business and defending it ably through every stage of opposition.
I need not tell you how much you will be wanted here on this occasion. I speak with the sincerity of a friend, when I assure you that, in my opinion, your presence cannot, must not, be dispensed with."
The committee went immediately to work, and in a little over a week reported out a draft for a Declaration of Rights. During the following fortnight the draft was discussed in detail; on June 15, it was unanimously adopted. In spite of the prolonged discussion, the original draft presented by Mason was to an amazing extent retained in its entirety. A comparison between the original document and the one finally adopted is made possible by the preservation in the State Library at Richmond of a copy of the original which Mason sent with a letter to George Mercer in 1778:
Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. copy of first D[r]aught by G. M.
A Declaration of Rights made by the Representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity as the basis and foundation of government.
1. That all men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2. That all power is by God and Nature vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectively secured against the dangers of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such a manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
5. That the legislative and executive powers of the State should be separate and distinct from the judicial; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, and return to that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections.
6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in the legislature ought to be free, and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent, common interest with and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives, so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the common good.
7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
10. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and to be held sacred.
11. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
12. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
13. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
14. That religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. -----
As a footnote to this copy, Mason wrote, "This Declaration of Rights was the first in America; it received few alterations or additions in the Virginia Convention (some of them not for the better) and was afterwards closely imitated by the other United States." The alterations, in all but a few cases, were merely verbal. The additions consisted of two articles, of which the first, in uneasy memory of British practice, declared against the issuance of general warrants, and the second, mindful of the situation in Virginia's western territory, announced that no government separate from the government of Virginia should be established within her territorial limits."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." From The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Before we go into a discussion of the Virginia Declaration of Rights notice how the wording compares to that found in the Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson and the Bill of Rights found at the end of the U. S. Constitution, the first amendment which is quoted above. Ther reader will find many other instances wherin the decision to include provisions of the Virginia Declaration of Rights not only in the Declaration of Independence, but almost verbatim in the Bill of Rights. It's easy to see why Helen Hall called her book, George Mason - Constitutionalist.
Perfection and Flaws
One of those quotes I'm frequently passing along goes like this "You are respected for your Perfection, and loved for your Flaws."
You will notice a distinct bias in my presentation in favor of the Scientific Community, but be careful here as in one of my earlier blogs I quote extensively from J.B.N. Sullivan and "Limitations of Science." Thus it may seem that I, like Sullivan, find it hard to give a lot of respect to science and scientists because there are so many open ends in that field you stand in awe of those who choose to tackle the "Unsolved Problems in Science." They deserve a great deal of respect for the achievements we have seen in our own lifetimes, but I must confess I like the little anecdotes, where discoveries have been made quite by accident, in fact, most keen observers have been trained to recognize the wierd events popping out on their research benches, fitting them into what his training expected, and the little gaps that never seem to quite close. Scientists do love other scientists, and the works, generally secular, they present for approval to the community.
Likewise, the sectarian world has much to be proud of, and accomplishments. To abolish a whole order of Jesuits is no mean feat, nonetheless, what a loss to mankind. Church organizations love one another just as avidly as, when the wheel turns, they turn to hatred, warfare and settling disputes violently. Religious organizations and literature has rightly earned the worlds respect because of the inexhaustability of authors to tackle the world's greatest paradoxes in search of explanations, beyond the usual cause and effect simplicity most rely on for moral judgement. The Federalist Papers disown factions which attempt to tear down institutions of society, like governments, but just as certainly do the taxes levied upon these same factions support the government, its actions, as well as pay the politicians who cause them into being.
It would seem that the framers of our government of the United States of America whose minds had aquiesed to the principles stated above in creating the remarkable country we all love, would find that our excesses and actions in Iraq exceed those to be tolerated, under article 13, "That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
I find that our failure can be directly traced to flagrant violations of Article One of the Bill of Rights not only in Iraq, but more importantly in the administration of our own government, as pointed out above. It has been said, what goes around, comes around.
In Dr. Thomas A. Harris' classic 'I'm O. K. -- You're O. K. A Practical Guide to Transactional Analysis' I have a quote from the fly-leaf that incorporates a well used phrase "I'm O. K. -- You're Not O. K.":
"Dr. Harris explains that there are four life positions underlying people's behavior. They are: (1) I'm not ok—you're ok (the anxious dependency of the immature); (2) i'm not ok—you're not ok (the "give-up" or despair position); (3) I'm ok— you're not ok (the criminal position); and (4) I'm ok—you're ok (the response of the mature adult, at peace with himself and others). Most people still unconsciously operate from the i'm not ok— you're ok position."
I'm no psychologist, but it is my understanding that a psychopath has mental disease or disorder, treatable by medication, usually under a psychiatrists care. On the other hand a sociopath is generally regarded as a criminal, and finds himself in jail, sometimes with a lot of psychopaths. In far too many instances in our culture, this position 'I'm O. K. -- You're Not O. K.' is regarded as a social norm. I recall from my youth that lynching of black people (colored) was regarded in the South as acceptable means of treating non-social behavior attributed to a person of race. Today the same antisocial attitude, while criticized, is generally tolerated and is regarded as racism.
Religious intolerance is also widespread, and tossed off as 'I'm - You're Not,' by individuals who don't realize how it is percieved as anti-social by independent observers. The Jewish groups (Anti-defamation League) who police antisemitic displays, object strenuously, but largly ignore the same antisemitic outbursts when directed toward Arabs, who are similarly Semites. This pernicious phenomena was recently described by Dr. Brezhenski as Islamophobe, which to me is an ancient manifestation of the disorder of Xenophobia. A tragic case was as a result of the bombing of the Morrow Building in Oklahoma City. Arab or Egyptians had earlier been charged with bombing the World Trade Center Garage in New York City, and it was a common knee-jerk reaction among Americans to accuse Muslims in general for the Oklahoma tragedy. I recall on hearing and seeing 9-11, my reaction, realizing that Muslims likely were suspects, I mentioned that it could have been the missing mad bomber Eric Rudolph, and made at least one person very angry. Rudolph was later apprehended, but long after the FBI had ascertained that Muslims, in fact, were responsible for 9-11.
There seems to be no good reason for prolonging this text. I do want to say that all of the elements exist in Iraq, for them to forge a strong country. The lack of diversity may be more superficial that what really exists. No doubt, the present of several agressive religious groups pray on the minorities, and until a sufficient enlightenment filters in, they may well be without many of the protections our Constitution provides here in the USA.
In conclusion, I would like to think of our misguided excursion into Iraq can have positive results, if we tune into the serious weakening interference religious activities has negatively affected the security of our homeland.
APPENDEXES
A. A Litmus Test
B. 'Separation of Church and State' from 'Wikipedia'
C. MOSLEM HATRED, A discussion from 'Al-Jazeerah'
D. Daniel Pipes and a Response from CONFLICTS FORUM
E. Non-violent Communication with Rita Herzog
F. Christian Embassy (available on request)
G. A Discussion of Islam, by Akbar Ahmed plus 'A Muslim View of Their History' (available on request)
H. American Spirituality from Wilson Quarterly by Joseph Schmidt (available on request)
I. Public Expression (ACLU website) (available on request)

APPENDEX A. A LITMUS TEST
A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would choose to proceed with the appointment or nomination. Those who must approve a nominee, such as a United States Senator, may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.
During U.S. presidential election campaigns, litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. Advocates for various social ideas or policies often wrangle heatedly over what litmus test, if any, the president ought to apply when nominating a new candidate for a spot on the Supreme Court. Support for, or opposition to, abortion is one example of a common decisive factor in single-issue politics; another might be support of strict constructionism. Defenders of litmus tests argue that some issue is so important that it overwhelms other concerns (especially if there are other qualified candidates that pass the test).
The political litmus test is often used when appointing judges. However, this test to determine the political attitude of a nominee is not without error. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed under the impression that he was conservative but his tenure was marked by liberal dissents. Today, the litmus test is used along with other methods such as past voting records when selecting political candidates.
Professor Eugene Volokh believes that the legitimacy of such tests is a "tough question," and argues that they may undermine the fairness of the judiciary:
imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. “Perjury!” partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They’ll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers’ expectations.
Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge’s duty to sincerely consider the parties’ arguments.[1]



APPENDEX B. WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
Overview of the principle
In the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802)
While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, anti-separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court case Vidal v. Philadelphia, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.
James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Walsh); "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.", and he declared "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
The belief that religious and state institutions should be separate covers a wide spectrum, ranging between one extreme which would secularize or eliminate the church, and theocracy, in which the government is an affiliate of the church. Some secularists believe that the state should be kept entirely separate from religion, and that the institutions of religion should be entirely free from governmental interference. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.
A secular government does not cite a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. However, some secular governments claim quasi-religious justifications for their powers, emphasizing the relationship mainly for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes. This is done for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, does not necessarily favor any specific religious group, and the state does not conform to any doctrine other than its own. This arrangement is called civil religion. Some secularists would allow the state to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but insist the state should not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma.
Some countries embrace a middle position, a compromise between secular and religious government. In these countries the state uses the powers of government to directly support a specific religious institution or established church. In Turkey, for example, despite it being an officially secular country, the Preamble of the Constitution states that "There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics." In order to control the way religion is perceived by adherents, the State pays imams' wages, and provides religious education in public schools (article 24 of that country's Constitution). The State has a Department of Religious Affairs (article 136 of the Constitution), directly under the Prime Minister bureaucratically, responsible for organizing the Muslim religion - including what will and will not be mentioned in sermons given at mosques, especially on Fridays. Such an interpretation of secularism, where religion is under strict control of the State is largely at odds with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is a good example of how secularism can be applied in a variety of ways in different regions of the world.
A theocracy exists when a religion establishes the government and religious law is applied to state policy under the direct authority of the religious institution. In a theocracy, the courts or officials of the religion direct policies of the civil government.
The separation of church and state is similar to the concept of freedom of religion, but the two concepts are not the same. For example, the citizens in a country with a state church may have complete freedom of religion. And citizens in a country without a state church may or may not enjoy the freedom to practice their religion. In the United States, the structure and wording of the First Amendment with both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, demonstrates this difference. Both clauses have evolved an important body of case law from the U.S. Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.
While many states or nations permit freedom of religious belief, no country allows completely unrestricted freedom of religious practice. National laws, when they reflect important or fundamental governmental interests, may prohibit certain acts which some citizens may claim represent the free exercise of their religious belief.
In the United States, state laws can prohibit practices such as bigamy, sex with children, human and occasionally animal sacrifice, use of drugs, or other criminal acts, even if citizens claims the practices are part of their religious belief system. However, the federal courts give close scrutiny to any state or local laws that impinge upon the bona fide exercise of religious practices. The courts ensure that genuine and important religious rights are not impeded, and that questionable practices are limited only to the extent necessary. The courts usually demand that any laws restricting religious practices must demonstrate a fundamental or "compelling" state interest, such as protecting citizens from bodily harm. See Free Exercise Clause for further discussion.
APPENDEX C. MOSLEM HATRED
Muslim hatred, separatism, tactics, and monopoly on morality, I
An Interactive Editorial By
Douglas Rotondi* and Hassan El-Najjar**
8/13/02
In interactive editorials, the editor of Al-Jazeerah answers questions and or responds to comments of readers, which are more general than readers' responses to specific articles or issues. It is an effective method of interaction in electronic journalism.

Douglas Rotondi
I read your mission statement, and I commend you for publishing news without hateful or derogatory comments and for attempting to be a tool of education to non-Arabs or non-Muslims. (1) It would be nice if Al-Jazeerah could also serve as an educational tool for Muslims regarding the United States and the rest of the western world, and address the deep seeded hatred of the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Hassan El-Najjar
(1) Al-Jazeerah is an educational tool to anybody who wants to learn, irrelevant of religious background. It is a forum for Muslims and non-Muslims to interact producing more understanding among people all over the world. This interactive editorial should hopefully be a contribution towards that noble goal. Readers are encouraged to send in their questions, comments, or articles.
Concerning what you call "the deep seeded hatred of the US in the Muslim world," I cannot agree with you that this exists until we have surveys in all Muslim countries and among the 1.3 billion Muslims all over the world. We should not think of all Muslims as if they are mass produced to think and behave in a certain way. They are as diverse as people of other religions and creeds everywhere. What is there, not only among Muslims but also among people in all continents from all faiths and creeds, is a deep criticism and disapproval of the US foreign policy, which is mainly based on the use of force, and in support of injustice, dictatorships, and autocracies. During the second half of the twentieth century alone, the US was involved in the major wars of Korea, Vietnam, and the 1991 Gulf War, the invasions of Grenada and Panama, the support for the dictators of Cuba (Batista), Nicaragua (Sumosa), the Philippines (Marcus), and the Middle Eastern non-democratic regimes. On top of all of that, the US has been the only sustainer and protector of Israel, which represents the most repressive and oppressive regime on earth. Israelis commit war crimes on daily basis against Palestinians after they had dispossessed and uprooted them. Yet they have the full support of the US government.
You didn't hear about Muslim "deep seeded hatred of the US" before the collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union because the US focused on defeating communism. Actually, Muslim groups were used by the US to fight the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan. Even the Taliban government was supported by the US. Once the Cold War was over, its beneficiaries in the US had to find a new enemy. After all, the Cold War was a $12.8 trillion industry and the US Cold War entrepreneurs could not afford seeing it vanish. They had to start Cold War II by installing a new enemy to replace communism. It took them the entire decade of the 1990s to achieve that goal, and that enemy turned to be "Islamism." Their slogan was, as I wrote in my book about the Gulf War, "Communism is dead, long live Islamism." The 1991 Gulf War was the start, and we are living its consequences. It seems that the US is heading towards Gulf War II, which will have other consequences, and so on.
So, it is not really hatred towards the American people and their institutions or their way of life, like some media instigators and politicians say. Rather, it is toward the biased and unjust foreign policy of the US government. Finally, there is no hatred or animosity towards the "Western World," as you think. Muslims do not have a problem with Western European countries. Muslim immigrants there are doing very well, and the European Union countries have opposed any US attack on Iraq. So, it is the US vis-a-vis the Arab and Muslim countries now, as it was the US vis-a-vis Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.
Douglas Rotondi
(2) Regarding the many Islamic separatist movements currently active all over the world, one thing I find missing from the news coverage is why these groups want their own country to begin with? What is so bad about living under the Indian government or the Philippines government? Do they want Sharia law? Are they being under-represented in the government? Are they being over taxed and neglected as far as education and infrastructure? It seems that almost every country with a sizeable Muslim minority has a problem with separatists. There is a large Arab community in Michigan in the U.S., will they one day want their own country?
Hassan El-Najjar
(2) With regard to what you call Muslim "separatism," in the Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine (you described Palestinians as separatists in your third question), there should be no surprise about that. The US supported the previous Soviet republics to break away from the Soviet Union. The US also supported Christian East Timor to separate from Indonesia. The US supported Christian southern Sudanese for decades to separate from the Muslim north. What's wrong with allowing predominantly Muslim regions to have self rule or self determination. If we apply the same standard to everybody, this shouldn't be a problem. Your question about Arab-Americans needs to be qualified with the fact that they are both Christians and Muslims. If you imagine a time in which Jewish Americans will have their own independent states in New York, Florida, and California, or Catholic Americans have their own independent state of Massachusetts, then you can imagine the same for Arabs, too. However, the US society is guarded against separatism by its multicultural nature, which is missing from these regions.
You should not have added Palestinians to other Muslims who are fighting for their freedom in other parts of the world, for several reasons. First, while Kashmiris are citizens of India and Chechens are citizens of the Russian Fedaration, Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. Actually, had Israel granted citizenship to Palestinians in 1948, and allowed them to keep their possessions and property, there would be no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Second, there are very specific UN resolutions that address the resolution of the Palestinian problem through the establishment of a Palestinian state and through solving the refugee problem by repatriation and compensation. The conflict has continued so far because Israel has refused to comply with the UN resolutions, fully supported and protected by the US successive administrations. Thus, Palestinians are not rebels or separatists, simply because they are not Israeli citizens.

* Douglas Rotondi is a tax accountant, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. He has a bachelors degree in accounting.
** Dr. Hassan El-Najjar is the editor of Al-Jazeerah.
APPENDEX D. Daniel Pipes and a Response from CONFLICTS FORUM
Daniel Pipes on Crooke’s Forum---------
Jerusalem Post title: "Please Don't Call It Terrorism"]
Shortly after Yusra Azzami, 20, strolled with her fiancé and her sister on the beach in Gaza last week, the vigilantes from Hamas formed suspicions that she was engaged in "immoral behavior." They followed her, shot her dead as she sat in her fiancé's car, dragged her corpse out and mutilated it savagely with clubs and iron bars.
This atrocity follows on Hamas having murdered over four hundred Israelis going about their daily business since 2000. Unsurprisingly, the American and other governments consider Hamas as a terrorist organization.
But how do they deal with such an organization? Two very different approaches exist, and President George W. Bush has articulated them both. In June 2003, he stated that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and specified that "Hamas must be dismantled." Last month, however, he offered Hezbollah a chance to prove it's not a terrorist organization and redeem itself "by laying down arms and not threatening peace."
This alarming second view builds on an outlook with growing support within the U.S. government. Many diplomats and intelligence officials believe, for example, that engaging the Muslim Brethren in Egypt (in the Washington Post's description) "offers an opportunity for political engagement that could help isolate violent jihadists." And Arabic-language news sources report that American officials in Egypt recently met with Muslim Brethren leaders.
To forward this wrong-headed idea, an organization called the Conflicts Forum was founded in December 2004. It has the immodest goal of not just changing policy toward radical Islamic terrorist groups, but changing how Westerners see radical Islam itself. Conflicts Forum wants to challenge "the prevailing western orthodoxy that perceives Islamism as an ideology that is hostile to the agenda for global democracy and good governance."
Conflicts Forum has several advantages, starting with the fact that what it terms the "prevailing Western orthodoxy" is – as noted above – quite soft. The group's founder and leader, Alastair Crooke, 55, was a ranking figure in both British intelligence and European Union diplomacy, someone who hobnobs with insiders, gives upbeat speeches at premier venues ("It is Essential to Negotiate with Terrorists" at the London School of Economics," "Can Hamas Be A Political Partner?" at the Council on Foreign Relations), and enjoys a fawning press.
But Crooke's true identity came out in a clandestine meeting he held with the Hamas leadership in June 2002, at a time when he still represented the European Union. We have an account of the meeting prepared by Hamas (which Crooke claims is inaccurate). It deserves reading in full for an insight into Crooke's amoral, craven, appeasing, and dhimmi-like, mentality.
• He recounts to Hamas having insisted to two high-ranking European politicians that "the status of Europe in the eyes of the Palestinians has started to deteriorate" because Europe did not adequately support the Palestinians.
• "The main problem [in the Middle East] is the Israeli occupation," which is music to Hamas ears.
• "As for terrorism, I hate that word," he tells leaders of a leading terrorist organization, going on to imply that he instead sees Hamas operatives as "freedom fighters."
This last fits Crooke's routine public dismissal of terrorism as a threat. The West, he says, faces not "terrorism" (his quote marks) but a distinctly less nasty "sophisticated, asymmetrical, broad-based and irregular insurgency." And his Conflicts Forum, dubbed by journalist Patrick Seale "a club of disaffected diplomats and intelligence officers," engages in a pleasant form of personal diplomacy that diminishes the horror of Islamist terrorism.
Thus, at a Conflicts Forum meeting last month in Beirut with the leadership of four Islamist terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hizbullah, the mood and the food were too good to allow this inconvenient subject to intrude. Stephen Grey, a journalist covering the event, later reflected on it: "Invited to dinner with the participants in the Beirut talks, and sharing jokes with the Hamas men over tiger prawns, avocado, pasta and cherry tomatoes, I wondered privately how one would explain all this intimacy to the mother of a child killed by a suicide bomber."
Conflicts Forum offers a seductive alternative to the hard business of waging and winning a war. Unfortunately, its wrong-headed, defeatist, and doomed approach amounts to preemptively losing the war. Its counsel deserves a round rejection.
Official Response From Conflicts Forum
May 3, 2005
As a director of Conflicts Forum and its partner organization here in America -- Alliance for Security -- I welcome the comments on our work and on Hamas made in your newspaper by Mr. Daniel Pipes. Mr. Pipes is certainly known for his support for democracy, and has been an outspoken advocate for our nation's war on terrorism. We join him in this and in his seeming support for our work to spread democracy in the region.
But we must take exception with his often breathless desire to raise unsubstantiated fears about Hamas's goals. The simple truth is that while the U.S. lists Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization, the group has never -- not once -- attacked or killed any Americans. Has the organization attacked and killed Israelis? Yes, unfortunately it has. And many of their operations have been reprehensible, killing and maiming innocent people. But as the directors of our organization, who have spent years working on the ground in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel will confirm, there is certainly enough blood to go around, including that of innocent Palestinians needlessly caught in the crossfire of a complex conflict.
How can we stop this? How can we Americans build security for our nation and promote democracy in the Middle East? When it comes to Hamas it seems to me that we have three choices: we can bomb the organization and attempt to kill its members, we can ignore it, or we can engage it in a dialogue that might, just might, lead to a better chance for peace.
Hamas is now putting forward candidates for legislative elections to be held in the West Bank and Gaza in July. The prospects are that they will win a substantial number of seats. Should we deny them their chance at democracy? Should we now criticize them for confirming the democratic values that we hold dear? It seems to us at both Conflicts Forum and the Alliance for Security that we, as Americans, must do everything in our power to support those in the Middle East who have opted to build their societies on those values that we hold dear -- of justice and peace, of accountability and transparency. Hamas has made this historic choice. We can take council of our fears, and condemn them, or we can open an exchange with their leadership that would put an end to the loss of innocent life that we all abhor.
Mark Perry
Washington, D.C.
Daniel Pipes responds:
I thank Mark Perry for his reasoned response. The key point he makes is that Hamas "has never -- not once -- attacked or killed any Americans." He is wrong; Hamas has killed a number of Americans in Israel. Further, he ignores the threat that its infrastructure in the United States poses, a topic I addressed the very day of his response, in "Hamas vs. America."
APPENDEX E. Non-violent Communication with Rita Herzog
MILLENNIUM SALON
Sunday, September 24 Non-violent Communication
Join us on Sunday, September 24, for our next Millennium Salon entitled "Non-violent Communication" with guest speaker Rita Herzog. The salon will expand on the ideas shared in the Sunday service, with group interaction and participation.
Non-violent Communication (NVC) is some¬ times referred to as compassionate communication.
Its purpose is to strengthen our ability to inspire compassion from others and to respond compassionately to others and to ourselves. NVC guides us to reframe how we express ourselves and hear others by
focusing our consciousness on what we are observ¬ing, feeling, needing, and requesting.
NVC trains us to make careful observations free of evaluation and to specify behaviors and con¬ditions that are affecting us. We learn to hear our own, deeper needs and those of others and to identify and clearly articulate what we are wanting in a given moment. When we focus on clarifying what is being observed, felt, and needed, rather than on diagnosing and judging, we discover the depth of our own com¬passion. Through its emphasis on deep listening—to ourselves as well as others—NVC fosters respect, attentiveness, and empathy and engenders a mutual desire to give from the heart. The form is simple yet powerfully transformative.
Rita Herzog has been studying and teaching Non-violent Communication for over twenty years. She is a certified trainer for the Center for Non-violent Communication, an international organization founded by Marshall B. Rosenberg, PhD, whose mission is to create peace in the world, one individ¬ual, one family, and one organization at a time.
Center for Non-violent Communication----
nonviolent communication is . . . ?
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is sometimes referred to as compassionate communication. Its purpose is to strengthen our ability to inspire compassion from others and to respond compassionately to others and to ourselves. NVC guides us to reframe how we express ourselves and hear others by focusing our consciousness on what we are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting.
We are trained to make careful observations free of evaluation, and to specify behaviors and conditions that are affecting us. We learn to hear our own deeper needs and those of others, and to identify and clearly articulate what we are wanting in a given moment. When we focus on clarifying what is being observed, felt, and needed, rather than on diagnosing and judging, we discover the depth of our own compassion. Through its emphasis on deep listening—to ourselves as well as others—NVC fosters respect, attentiveness and empathy, and engenders a mutual desire to give from the heart. The form is simple, yet powerfully transformative.
While it is taught through the use of a concrete model, and is referred to as “a process of communication” or a “language of compassion,” Nonviolent Communication is more than a process or a language. As our cultural conditioning often leads our attention in directions unlikely to get us what we want, NVC serves as an ongoing reminder to focus our attention on places that have the potential to yield what we are seeking—a flow between ourselves and others based on a mutual giving from the heart.
Founded on language and communication skills that enable us to remain human, even under trying conditions, Nonviolent Communication contains nothing new: all that has been integrated into NVC has been known for centuries. The intent is to remind us about what we already know—about how we humans were meant to relate to one another—and to assist us in living in a way that concretely manifests this knowledge.
The use of NVC does not require that the persons with whom we are communicating be literate in NVC or even motivated to relate to us compassionately. If we stay with the principles of NVC, with the sole intention to give and receive compassionately, and do everything we can to let others know this is our only motive, they will join us in the process and eventually we will be able to respond compassionately to one another. While this may not happen quickly, it is our experience that compassion inevitably blossoms when we stay true to the principles and process of Nonviolent Communication.
adapted from Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life
by Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
Published by PuddleDancer Press, available from CNVC
See also: The Spiritual Basis of Nonviolent Communication English or Las Bases Espirituales de la Comunicación No Violenta español
nonviolent communication skills
As the name implies, this approach to communication emphasizes compassion as the motivation for action rather than fear, guilt, shame, blame, coercion, threat or justification for punishment. In other words, it is about getting what you want for reasons you will not regret later. These techniques allow you to make conscious choices about how you will respond whether you get what you want, or not. It is definitely NOT about guilt and tricking people into giving you what you want.
The skills are built on Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg's application of Nonviolent Communication. The process of NVC encourages us to focus on what we and others are observing, how and why we are each feeling as we do, what our underlying needs are, and what each of us would like to have happen. These skills emphasize personal responsibility for our actions and the choices we make when we respond to others.
Nonviolent Communication skills will assist you in dealing with major blocks to communication such as demands, diagnoses and blaming. In CNVC trainings you will learn to express your feelings without attacking. This will help minimize the likelihood of facing defensive reactions in others. The skills will help you make clear requests. They will help you receive critical and hostile messages without taking them personally, giving in, or losing self-esteem. These skills will be useful with your family, friends, students, subordinates, supervisors, co-workers and clients. These skills will be useful with your own internal dialogues.
NVC is a clear and effective model for communicating in a way that is cooperative, conscious, and compassionate.

posted by James E. Opfell @ 7:37 AM