In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death

An anonymous reader writes "In Iran, crimes such as apostasy (leaving a religion, in this case Islam) and armed robbery are already punishable by death, but a new bill in Iran aims to add to the list 'establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,' effectively giving the government a free hand in silencing bloggers. The internet is widely used in Iran, despite its previous attempts at censorship. Will this change as the censorship grows more rampant?"

Re:mm

[belal1]

Seperation of Church and State is a Secular ideology. Iran is supposedly an "islamic" state ruled by "islam" and so cannot separate religion from state laws. There's a beautiful book for you non-muslims if you want to understand the issue of man-made laws vs shariah (divine laws) from an islamic perspective: http://islamicbookstore.com/b7932.html [islamicbookstore.com]

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

It went well until their moderate, democratically elected government was overthrown by the CIA and had it replaced by The Shah. Apparently democracies aren't allowed to exist if they aren't pro-US.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

But, we (the US & GB) put the Shah's father in power through a coup in 1953 - toppling the elected Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Feel free to read how and why that little operation was accomplished here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Oil_nationalization_and_the_1953_coup [wikipedia.org] and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d [wikipedia.org]'état

But for our intervention, where would Iran be today?

Re:mm

[MightyMartian]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. "
Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers very explicitely set up a secular state, a state with complete religious freedoms and a state free of any potential government religious coercion. That means that a Jew, atheist or Hindu has equal rights before the law and has a right not to have any particular religion pushed on him by the government. Attempting to redefine what the Founding Fathers meant is a pretty weak tactic, particularly when their views on religious freedom and on the noxious mix than religion and politics make is so well known.

Re:mm

[psychodelicacy]

You're kinda wrong about what the Founding Fathers intended. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if read in the context of the times and the meanings of philosophical/theological terminology then, were radically anti-Church and deliberately non-Christian. Jefferson called most of the New Testament dross, including describing the Book of Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac". Read Alan Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" for a very detailed and interesting account of this.

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

Sure, one can argue a lot about the aftermath of the Iraq war, but at least you can' deny that the US got rid of Iraqi state terrorism and that human rights are much better there now.

Re:mm

[Holi]

I won't mod you down or troll but I will respond with article 11 of the 1796 treaty with Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

and on a side note, Why am I hearing about loyalty oaths in the USA, loyalty oaths have no place in a free society.

Re:Separation isn't strictly necessary

[expatriot]

In Denmark, you can choose whether you want a contribution from your taxes to go to the church. I believe it is the same for many, if not most, European countries. In the UK, there is an official church but it gets very little money from the goverment.

Re:No, not quite

[mrsteveman1]

Iran had a legitimate democratically elected government at one point and we interfered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax [wikipedia.org]

So yea, they are partially to blame but so are we.