Of course some [i]people[/i] do make an atheism somewhat of a religion. They tend to put down all religions (Christianity in the first place ); they are against manifestation of any religion, even in private; they want to change the name “christmass” into meaningless, politically correct “winter holidays” and so on and so forth. . But if you know history of France, the beginning of modern France has been based on anti-clerical movement so one should not be supprised that France bans both hijab and the cross. But banning the signs of religion in governmental offices is not the same as making an atheism a new religion. That was strictly Soviet Union proposal.
[quote]secular regimes in practice ban god-oriented symbols, therefore enjoining and enforcing a style of life which doesnt believe in God, and this is what I call “making a new religion out of Atheism“[/quote]
Wrong.
Russia is secular, Poland is secular, Serbia is secular, US is secular……….do they prohibit any religion there? Do they enforce a style of life which doesn’t believe in God?
Go to Russia, go to US, go to Serbia and see for yourself if you think it true.

That is a major difference, don’t you agree?

I do admit that there is a big difference. personally I would prefer to live in France even if they do not let my wife wear her hijab in public universities. and I think, it would be the choice of any rationale creature indeed, as u noted above, france just bans hijab in public universities, but Iran systematically persecutes Bahais, and there is a big difference, for sure.

BUT I was just trying to point out a big inherent problem of such democracies, a problem which might be called a kind of Paradox. let me elaborate the case with a simple example: suppose that I make a new religion, and say that “all of those who are eager to follow me and become Memarians, they should uncover their hair (frankly: head’s hair, not else!) and let it be seen by everybody anywhere. and they must only wear T-Shirts.” that is a religiuos symbol by definition, yeah? then, given that I gather enough followers, is France going to ban this religious symbol in public universities? I can add to my religion several other features: “all Memarians should use contact lenses, female Memarians should color their nails, etc.” is french government likely to ban my religion’s very symbols?

think a bit about the above question. my asnwer is: “No. They cant.” then, it shows the deficiency of that principle which is trying to ‘ban every religious symbol’.

suppose that a religion requires a certain behavior and another religion requires exactly the opposit. for example, Memarians should wear Tshirts, and Konradians should never wear Tshirts. these are both ’symbols’ by definition: wearing a certain thing, and not-wearing it. then, how are you going to ban “both symbols” in the same time? another example might be growing a beard and mustache for Memarians, and shaving it for Konradians. is it possible to ban ‘both’ of them in the same time?

one might ask what is the solution proposed by secular regimes… here is the solution: we just consider those religions which are now available in the market and enjoy a considerable amount of support, and ban them. (a pragmatic view it is, but paradoxical in depth.) and, since all of these religions believe in God, secular regimes in practice ban god-oriented symbols, therefore enjoining and enforcing a style of life which doesnt believe in God, and this is what I call “making a new religion out of Atheism“.

“This system” as you call it does not make a new religion out of atheism. The religion in “this system” is private, that means that you can go to mosque, church or wherever to practice your religion and do whatever you want in private as long as you do not do that in public. That means no religious symbols in schools. You probably do not know that wearing cross is also prohibited in French schools.
That is the rule in france, in other countries for example in UK, USA, Canada or in Russia you can wear hijab, or anything you want up to and including the sikh knives (religious symbols), in some countries you can wear hijab but not chador. The last one has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with terrorism. But overall it is wrong to say that atheism is a “new religion”, you should better say that there is the distinction between sacrum and profanum i.e. between religious and secular spheres.
As for praying 5 times a day – you can do it at home, not problem, although your wife would have problem in France, though not in other EU or American countries. That would be then your choice – stay in France or move somwhere else. In Iran non-muslims have to wear strict hijab everywhere, in France muslims are not allowed to wear it only in school or if working in governmental offices, you can wear it on the street any time. That is a major difference, don’t you agree?

As for PRC – the PRC today and PRC under Mao are quite different things. Nevertheless muslims in Xinjiang are still put into prison thought in lower numbers then before and IRI does nothing about it.
If IRI will have improved its economy as well as China did I would be all for leaving IRI and Iranians to their own devices, with improvement of economy usually comes improvement in the human rights. However there is no signs of improvement of IRI economy and no improvement of inflation in Iran. The biggest revenue IRI has comes from oil and IRI products can not compete on the international market with products from other countries. PRC improved its economy through opening its economy to co-operation with european, US and other western businesses, IRI does not want to change its rules and regulations like chinese did.
So I think that if Iranians themselves want to topple the government good luck to them, if they do not want to do it then they will have more presidents like Ahmadinejad and IRI economy will not improve.

What I proposed in many articles is a series of political and judicial sanctions towards IRI’ seniors

as long as they do effect just those seniors and do not interfere with everyday life of ordinary citizens, I might be approving of them. but, let me emphasize on the fact that any sanction (repeat after me: any sanction) which might worsen the life-condition of common citizens, it will happen to be a counter-productive strategy to ur own cause.

in a democracy, people can have their faith in privacy, but not imposed on the institutions.

Hurray. the core idea of this system is a great thing: “nobody should impose his/her preferred lifestyle (especially religious ones) on others”… I buy it… but what if this system makes a new religion out of atheism and imposes it on others? most noticably: Hijab Ban is such an impose… by the way, this idea is great, as long as it is not going to force me to give up on my personal lifestyle: I want to pray 5 times a day, my wife is passionaely advocating Hijab, etc.

having this regime for anther three decades is more harmful than having a-three-year of popular revolts.

1- I think that no popular revolt is likely to happen. IRI will be the last dictatorship of the world to fall, if all of them are supposed to fall.
2- let me know ur idea about Chinese Government. I asked you this question one more time, and you probably didnt see it: if IRI was making a good thing in economic era (like that of China), was it morally acceptable to topple it? topple it to bring more freedom in expense of worse economic situation? its not very easy to say ‘yes’ to this question, I think.

I have also rejected any military attack or sanctions on basics of Iranian people—see my previous posts on MEY and GOOGLE.

What I proposed in many articles is a series of political and judicial sanctions towards IRI’ seniors, as the only perpetrators, by the highest international political and judicial bodies—The U.N / The Hague Court/ EU Council…

You might be more concerned about religioin than politics. In a democracy, people can have their faith in privacy, but not imposed on the institutions. This is another reason a multiethnical nation like Iran needs secularismo as a guarantee for religion freedom.

I personally do not believe in the accuracy, morality, divinity, and necessity of any religion, especially of Islam, but accept as democrat coexistence as long as a religion does not call for violence.

I know, the IRI will not give over the power to people, it violently resists, but having this regime for anther three decade is more harmful than having a-three- year of popular revolts.
I have been for the past three decades in France and Germany and live as a German citizen a normal life.

I am not a political activist and have no ambition for it, but, as a freelance writer, what is wrong if I share my ideas with others? Tell please Omid, I like to visit Iran anythe “red carpet”!

Let’s first achieve the main job—to get rid of the criminal and an anti Iranian regime which has taken people in hostage —nothing will worse after IRI’s fall.

How are you going to change this regime? “lets replace it with a swiss model” … good in theory, but not practical at all. the regime will resist any regime change, for sure.

what about a military option? in that case, tell “nothing will worse after IRI’s fall” to Iraqis who were promissed the same before US inavsion… and latest statistics (I read somewhere) show that more than 1.200.000 Iraqis died after that damned invasion, a better part of their infrastructure turned into dust, and it will take many years of peace to rebuild what US cracked.

I think that a simple SWOT analysis would rank the rapid regime change as the last desirable option, espicially as long as the people tend to remain the same.

by the way, Iran is a closer thing to Democracy compared with most of mideast countries, as Omid once said. you, sit there, and call us to do this and that, and probably provide a red carpet for you to arrive… world does not work that way.

–During the Iranian revolution, Iranians were not enough aware of a newborn dictatorship. As in 1979, most Iranians still believed that Ayatollah Khomeini could assume freedom and justice; it turned short after the revolution into an illusionary vision.
–The revolution was not the problem; the problem was the whole period of after-revolution, from 1980 until now.

–A number of religious intellectuals, Soroush, Banisadr, Ayat…reinterpreted Islam and reinvest it with meanings appropriate to the current situation, diverting people with false hopes. Furthermore, Iranian secular intelligentsia could not play an important role because of the Phalavi’s long dictatorship. For mass of angry Iranians, the choice between despair and hope was very difficult, especially with no experience and milestone of democracy.

–I think Iranians, despite repression and brainwashing, still have a great will for rehabilitation, once this regime is gone, millions of active Iranians from inside or outside can rebuild the devastated country.

–Application of democracy in a new Iran will take time and needs preconditions, but it is vital, the only model to guarantee justice, progress and human rights.

–Let’s first achieve the main job—to get rid of the criminal and an anti Iranian regime which has taken people in hostage —nothing will worse after IRI’s fall.

(1)

with regards to current status of Ahmadinejad: he is a famous man, even notorious, both inside and outside of Iran. but those things which make a notorious figure of this man in western dominated media, are not those things which make him a popular person in Iran.

that is true that many bloggers and etc are strongly criticizing him and his administration, but pay attention that you hear some voices in cyber world over and over which belong to the minority of Iran’s population: they usually fail to portray an average picture of this country.

to get a better understanding of his current status in Iran, read this article: Local promises in Iran: Ahmadinejad’s election trump card?… the author refers to “Ahmadinejad’s undeniable charisma”

(2)

regardless of those causes which might ultimately show a butterfly effect, I think that a revolution is not imminent at all. and, also, I think that a ‘revolution’ is more likely to loose to a reform, in a cost-benefit analysis.

Iranians dont have any idea what a democracy is… yeah, I do admit that providing a sample democracy (for example: a sudden regime change) might enable them to practice and ‘practice makes better’, but such a thing is not risk-free.

people should try to get used to democractic principles in the depth of the society, and then direct the flow step by step towards the regime… not a sudden change may help us, I think.