Politics, Religion, and Democracy

In past discussions regarding the political spectrum and its confrontation with social changes, we continue the discussion in relation to politics, religion, and democracy. The idea of democracy fundamentally evolved during a period of human history known as the "Age of Enlightenment." The Age of Enlightenment began in the late seventeenth century and, with the presence of philosophers such as Diderot, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Kant, marked a historical movement of intellectualism that emerged from the dark corners of unknown worship. Two significant events of the Enlightenment era are the French Revolution and American Independence. This process of enlightenment replaced the dominance of Christian doctrines and texts of the Catholic Church, which prohibited any thought contrary to religious understanding. One of the earliest events in this period that shifted people's perspectives away from religious thought and led to their awakening was the trial of Galileo, a seventeenth-century scientist and mathematician. The Church deemed Galileo's theory of the Earth's rotation around the sun as contrary to religious teachings, leading to his trial. Christianity faced the most challenges from the Enlightenment process, while other religions like Islam or Judaism were not as visibly in conflict. However, today, centuries after Galileo's lifetime, anti-Enlightenment thought has been revived from other religious frameworks, this time from the Islamic context. The problem religions face with the principle of Enlightenment and with democracy as its essence is evident. Although Christianity eventually submitted to democracy in many Western countries, Islam has never sought to dissect this idea or understand its daily application in the governance of the state and the relationship between citizens and government power. In an era where even Pope Francis, a symbol of Catholic Christianity, does not consider the theory of gradual evolution contrary to belief in God, Islamic scholars still view the separation of religion and state as equivalent to heresy and blasphemy, attempting to deny and block thoughts of freedom and democracy based on religious assumptions without ever explaining to Muslims why they think this way. Even after more than three hundred years, the Age of Enlightenment remains dark for some self-proclaimed Muslims, who consider it the "starting point of God's departure from human life" and thus oppose the principle of questioning and finding scientific answers through inquiry and criticism of worldly phenomena. [Among these perspectives is a series of articles published by the Fars News Agency in 2012 titled "A Brief Overview of Western Thoughts," which referred to the Age of Enlightenment as "the starting point of God's departure from human life."]. Interestingly, democracy does not promote atheistic thought at all; it simply leaves individuals free to accept or reject religion. On the other hand, democracy strives to provide a way to optimally govern society using the collective will of all the forces that constitute it (the political spectrum) and to remove political power from the monopoly of God and His representatives in mosques and churches. At the same time, the forces that constitute political power include the church and clergy, and the democratic system, unlike Marxism and other ideological systems, does not seek to destroy religion and the church. The political conditions during the Age of Enlightenment in Christian societies were more or less the same as those that exist today in most Islamic societies. Although Enlightenment philosophers shared many common points, they also thought very differently on many issues. For example, they agreed that the "individual" should be "free," but they did not agree on the concept of freedom. For instance, the conservative English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that freedom is only possible when the "individual" is absolutely subject to the king; while John Locke, another English philosopher known as the father of classical liberalism, believed that freedom is valuable when the "individual" is left to their own devices and is considered absolutely free. Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought similarly to Locke but emphasized the principle of equality of individuals before the governing principles in society, while at the same time, like Hobbes, he believed that the "individual" must be bound and dependent on a legitimate center of power. Modern democracy is the result of a long challenge of similar and varying thoughts, and the least source that can help us understand the history of modern democracy is the study of the thoughts of three great philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. However, in this short article, we can only briefly touch upon this to reach an understanding of the application of democracy in contemporary societies. Religion and Democracy In the context of the "social contract" as a framework for governance, Locke and Hobbes did not agree. Locke opposed Hobbes's view that human nature is selfish and savage, considering humanity to be the source of goodness, thus believing that human nature prior to the establishment of society and government is acceptable and pleasant, characterized by peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and protection. Today, this condition is unproblematic from the perspective of the socialist school, but capitalism has little to do with the issue of mutual assistance. Of course, Locke did not believe that humans are flawless. Hobbes and Locke did not think alike regarding the phenomenon of the state. From Hobbes's perspective, the king was not part of the social contract but existed outside of it and had no obligation to it, while Locke, in direct opposition to him, believed that people themselves create the social contract, and after that, the state emerges as the agent and representative of society, thus the power of the state is first a function of society and then a function of the individual. In other words, the fall of the state does not mean the end of society, as society can create another state. We see this same theory in the thought of Thomas Jefferson and the "Declaration of Independence" of the United States. Hobbes's indirect contribution to the development of democratic thought is his emphasis on the principle that "the people" are the source of legitimate political power, not "God"; and this point is the distinction between religion and democracy in today's world. Another point that places religion in opposition to democracy is the emphasis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the principle of freedom of belief and religious conviction. Freedom of religion and freedom of belief and conviction is one of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which considers individuals or communities, collectively or individually, free and entitled to believe in and practice a religion, doctrine, or belief. According to this principle, individuals are free to change their religion, refrain from following a religion, or discontinue their membership in a religious group. The laws of the United States and many Western democracies also extend the freedom of religion to the extent of having no religion, and this is precisely an issue in Islam that is equated with heresy and enmity against God and can, under certain conditions, warrant death. Economy and Democracy Today, many discussions of democracy revolve around the principle and foundation of the relationship between the people and the state. Economics and politics are increasingly intertwined with modern society, with an increasing understanding of social and economic laws, replacing fatalistic and supernatural thinking with a scientific understanding of social relations. Contemporary liberalism is the product of transformations that have passed through the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries and, after historical ups and downs, has ultimately reached an agreement between the values of political society. Along this path, differences between private property rights and human rights emerged. Classical economists considered real human freedom meaningless without the right to private property. The belief that the state should not limit rights (including property rights) and individual freedoms became the starting point for the emergence of two opposing viewpoints: one Marxist thought that supported the state's exclusive right to the means of production, and the other the unlimited right to individual freedom, including property rights. The tension between these two views dominated international relations for nearly a hundred years, dividing the world into two ideological schools of liberal economics and Marxism. This division impacted the concept of economics on the thought of freedom and democracy and gradually reached the conclusion that one of the features of modern ideologies is based on the principle that after the industrial revolution, politics and economics have become so intertwined that the existence of democracy without economic freedom is unimaginable. Thus, we observe that modern democracy is divided into two main types: liberal democracy and social democracy. Capitalism is an inseparable part of liberal democracy. Religion and Liberalism Alongside the expansion of liberalism in various aspects of social life, its incompatibilities with religious societies also emerged. For example, liberals support the right to abortion for women, believing that women have the right to decide whether to keep or terminate their pregnancy. This recognition of women's rights is primarily because, in liberal democracy, the state has no right to interfere in the personal affairs of citizens (whether male or female) or to legislate on them. Interestingly, in Western societies, many conservatives, without entering the abortion debate, defend the principle of freedom of decision-making as a "right," and extending this to the issue of abortion automatically recognizes it as a personal choice. A broader look at this issue shows that liberals and conservatives ultimately reach a common conclusion and agree on it: abortion reduces the population of the poor in a country, and usually, children born unwanted (poor children) only increase poverty in society. Therefore, abortion reduces the spread of poverty. Interestingly, if we closely examine the components of this political spectrum, other groups of liberals and conservatives jointly oppose abortion but stand together: conservatives argue that a pregnant woman has a moral responsibility to produce and care for the child she has conceived and thus must be accountable for her decision in difficult circumstances. However, another group of liberals reaches the same conclusion from a different perspective. They oppose capital punishment and killing citizens and consider abortion a form of murder by the individual, thus opposing abortion. With this reasoning, the position of this group of liberals and conservatives, wherever they may be on the political spectrum, brings them closer together regarding the issue of abortion. In contrast, in religious societies, especially Islamic ones, abortion incurs eternal punishment and hellfire and is equated with crime, and individuals have no freedom to decide on it and do not consider it (except in exceptional cases) as part of citizens' rights. In societies where strong religious motivations overshadow politics, no one generally addresses the issue of poverty and its impacts on society or views issues like abortion from the perspective of rights and individual freedom. Poverty is considered part of divine will, and the government, based on the prevailing religious beliefs in the system, legislates and officially restricts citizens' rights regarding abortion or decision-making about it from a religious command perspective. In contrast, in Western societies where the role of religion has been separated from politics, legislation based on religion is considered government interference in individual rights and freedoms and is deemed unacceptable. Religious societies, especially Islamic ones, differ from liberal democracy and capitalism in another aspect: the economy. This difference can be seen in the perspective of a classless, monotheistic society, which resembles an ideal city. Religion is usually not opposed to capitalism but is engaged with it. On one hand, it cannot digest and absorb the issue of "interest" on money. On the other hand, there are no clear distinctions between interest on money, accounting and administrative costs, or indirect interest on money. For example, a traditional Muslim considers interest on money as usury and thus forbidden, believing that receiving rent on money is prohibited in Islam. However, if he buys an apartment with money and rents it out at an exorbitant price, he feels at ease that he has not engaged in usury, even if part of the money used to purchase the apartment was paid with an interest-bearing bank loan. It is debatable whether receiving rent for property is fundamentally different from receiving interest on money, and whether interest and amounts paid to the bank under different names and interest received from the bank are fundamentally the same. (The continuation of this discussion will be in two weeks in the Ideas section.) Jalil Roshandel, Professor of Political Science at East Carolina University Membership In this context, the confrontation of the political spectrum with social changes The political spectrum; left, right, radical, reactionary... The changing battlefield of "proxies"; war against the people in the streets of Iran The first paragraph; the responsibility of opponents and the likelihood of radicalizing Iranian society The passing of the last representative of Mossad in Tehran amidst the Iranian crisis 1 Two weeks after a complete blackout, the time for reconnecting the internet in Iran is still "uncertain" 2 The shadow of war over Tehran; "Trump is seeking decisive military options against Iran" 3 Trump says if the Islamic Republic attempts to assassinate him, it will be "wiped off the face of the earth" 4 Senior U.S. official: Trump’s administration is closely monitoring the case of Reza Valizadeh 5 The Islamic Republic announced the number of casualties from the protests in December as "three thousand and 117 people".