In societies where morality is not separated from religion, true morality is thrown out, suffers. There can be no state more authoritarian and fascistic than a theocracy.

In a very real sense, communism can be considered a secular religion whose God is the invisible hand of economic forces guiding the course of history. It attempts to supplant and replace God-rule with a vague sense of a collective meta- or supra-person [person = citizen], a collective identity. Individuality is necessarily submerged for the greater good of the whole. Art, architecture, all facets of culture give muffled testament to this suppressed, amorphous lack of uniqueness, this emptiness of spirit and joie-de-vivre. Witness Soviet Union architecture -- the death of the soul, of color, and of imagination in concrete. On the other hand, we can't forget that the mechanisms and institutions of the communist state need to be run by 'individuals'; they can't run themselves. For those familiar with the story "Animal Farm," I need say no more.

Its credo: "We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others" finds its way into all sorts of purported egalitarian social enterprises and organizations. Living and working for, and depending on the state gradually erodes individual energy, drive and motivation required for the system as input, with the ineluctable result that the entire desiccated edifice collapses from sheer exhaustion.

Communist China has managed to avoid this inevitability by opening its doors to capitalism and market economics, while at the same time mercilessly suppressing any dissent against the ruling party, the government. Previously the main motivation for cohesion and order was mutual survival. Food, rice needed to be grown and so the collective farm was mandated. The so-called 'Cultural Revolution' flattened whatever inklings of emergent liberalism, self-expression and human rights had been making themselves known, increasing the pervasiveness of grief and despair.

Ironically, this state of affairs, particulary in the expansive rural south and west, precipitated, that is to say, forced the leaders to loosen their hold on business possibilities and open the doors to trade on a global scale. China, as the sweatshop of the world, found a way to quiet and dispel threats of revolution, and to dilute the tirades of dissidents. It's difficult to recruit fodder for the cause when said fodder has a few bucks in his pocket and is planning his vacation. They were and are being bought off. The countryside, however, especially out west, has not felt the effects of the burgeoning economy, are not reaping the benefits of capitalism so prominent in the urban areas.

North Korea, on the other hand, has failed miserably for a number of reasons: corruption, general incompetence, and extreme authoritarianism [the gulag system is alive and thriving] are among the top contenders. As a nation/state it is a facade with a rotting, near hollow interior. North Korea's leaders are nothing more than gangsters and international arms and drug dealers. And that's the real cause of fear they inspire. Not that N.K. as a country might attack Japan, the U.S. or even S.K., but rather they have no compunction about dealing seriously lethal weapons to terrorist organizations, which is, afterall, the essential identity of North Korean leadership itself.

Capitalism does not equal Democracy, and Democracy does not equal Freedom; they are not mutually inclusive; in other words, you can have one without the others. Although democracy is the best atmosphere for capitalism to thrive, democracy does not necessarily translate into individual freedom and universal opportunities. Clearly, the most conspicuous example of this, also billed as the world's largest democracy, is India.

India has a democratic form of government and is presently enjoying a booming economy and vigorous culture, mainly in the cities however. [The gulf widening between the haves and have-nots is greater even than in the U.S., where it has also been spreading.] But India's democracy is in name only, a heavy card to play at the U.N. or the W.T.O.. Why? There are four main social groups arranged hierarchically and subdivided into over 3,000 different, finely-graded and delineated castes. What is available as opportunity on one level is not accessible from any lower one. Once again, the urban areas are working to transcend these imaginary lines, but, in a country of 1.2 billion, the vast majority of rural India still live under the old rules, democracy or no.

But ailing, repressive communisms and illusory democracies [the 'Stan' countries?] are currently being upstaged by existing theocratic states. A disturbing surge in fundamentalism, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe and the United States, threatens traditions and institutions. The Muslems emigrating to Europe bring with them not only a discipline of self-denial, but also a point-of-view towards non-muslims as infidels and sub-humans. The fear caused by this influx is loss of national identity and liberal lifestyles. They also bring their culture, with its revenge and honor killings, complete intolerance to any criticism, and the issuing of death warrants to perceived blasphemers by insistent and persuasive clerics.

What kind of a religion places zero value on human life and the experience of life? For a person to believe that if he blows himself to smithereens and takes as many children and others with him as possible, he will not only be considered a martyr for the 'cause' of Islam [whatever that is], but will be rewarded by Allah, is to me the height of insanity and worthlessness. Invoking Allah and Mohammed and Islam as justifications for murder not only detracts from moderate Muslems, who only wish to practice their religion, but paints a perception of all muslems as potentially dangerous [and perhaps even a little deranged].

They are fixated on the menu, and have forgotten the food it merely stands for. The words of the physical artifact, the Book, whatever book it may be, stand for meanings other than themselves, they are symbols, not signs. The literalists, the fundamentalists, do not see this distinction, as obvious as it is.

In Iran there is an elite body of clerics, the Guardian Council, who have absolute power and apply it to dictate who can and who can't run for political office. The peoples' attempt at reform towards a democratic atmosphere will always be thwarted by these "Animal Farm" representatives. They are the prophets of old, the scholars, the interpreters of the Book. Any reformist movement would obviously undermine their authority. Theocracies self-contradict: They are essentially soulless.

In the U.S., the neo-conservative, evangelical Christian fundamentalists would like to establish a similar situation. They are well-organized and have become 'almost' indistinguishable from the Republican Party. As a citizen I felt personally embarrassed for Presidient Bush when he attempted to intercede in the Terri Shiavo right-to-life case, accompanied by the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress. What were they thinking? How was it any of their business? They showed their hand and it blew up in their collective face. Such butt-kissing is intolerable and degrading.

The Founding Fathers incorporated as a basic tenet the separation of Church and State. This separation is slowly being eroded piecemeal, and no one who is in a position to do anything about it, does anything about it, out of fear, more than likely. As an example of the dissolution of this line: Planned Parenthood in Africa, a government sponsored program, is now under strict requirement not to distribute condoms or birth control pills, or offer any abortion assistance or advice. [It's probably done on the sly or out front, depending, anyway; these are medical people confronted with a real problem they live with every day.] This, on a continent practically overwhelmed by an AIDS epidemic and grinding, abject poverty. These are your tax dollars at work, tax dollars that now come conditioned by the agenda of the evangelical Christian Right.

The belief that a person can't be moral without also belonging to some conventional religion, regardless of its position on the left-to-right spectrum, is utter nonsense.

The Holy Roman Empire (H.R.E.) included a 500 year stretch called the Inquisition. Gallileo felt its wrath and absolute power, as did millions of others, the quintessential example of a theocratic empire. It was overthrown by discrediting the authority of its 'knowledge base' -- its package of dogma and literal, parochial interpretation thereof -- by some very brave and moral people. The H.R.E. was not only a supreme dictatorship and tyrannical form of government, it was a true terrorist organization. Heretics were given the choice: confess and be buried alive; or don't and be burned at the stake. Some choice. The H.R.E.'s central concern was not, of course, dogma purity but land grabbing and power. It always comes down to power and influence and control. The few over the many, the pigs of "Animal Farm" over the other creatures in the barnyard and pasture.

Morality must win out over religious perspectives, world-views and agendas. The game of pretending to be offended because of religious reasons when point-of-fact you have not a moral leg to stand on is being played out on the world stage in earnest. The United States suffers to placate and mollify an increasingly aggressive and vociferous Muslem World [the globalization of comunication networks has come of age simultaneously and is being worked adroitly], while trying to drive a wedge between the political-religious alloy that serves as the Muslem social reality.

As our government, through the Bush administration, pursues this strategy by proselytizing freedom and democracy around the world, here at home our freedoms and democracy are being undermined, curtailed, and threatened. And as the U.S. works to separate Mosque from State, it is itself beset from within by a kind of nucleosynthesis of politics, policy, and fundamentalist Christianity -- a mind-numbing fusion of Church and State.

Is that the way it's always been in the world? Is there some kind of conservation of good and evil law that has to be maintained?

Humanity shares the fundamental right, a moral right that should be the bedrock of all religions, to dignity, consideration, and security [not to mention: food, shelter, medical care, and clothing]. To deny or ignore this right, or show callous indifference when something can be done to alleviate a bad situation, in the name of economic expediency, national security, or religious fanaticism, regardless of where on the planet, East or West, is to be more than both immoral and irreligious -- it is to be anti-life.

*Theocracy
compliments of Dictionary.Com:

a word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9).

Irony Of Ironies