Mental Attitude?

I was interested in comparing the pantheistic Shinto to Religious Humanism which is also pantheism but only materialistic. Read The Essence of Shinto from 2006 by Motohisa Yamakage who is the 79th descendent of Shinto Masters in Yamakage Shinto and also a graduate in Economy.


Shintoism is an originally Japanese spiritual movement that blended with Buddhism when it came to Japan around the 6th century from China and therefore also has Confucian and Daoistic elements. It is pantheistic and non-personal in character but spiritual not religious since there is not really any canon or doctrines. There is a head God or Kami that is closely linked with Nature but also other inferior Kamis which to some mean a polytheistic character although the head Kami gives it a pantheistic touch. There is a clear supernatural component and as Descartes said about Christianity you don’t need intelligence or knowledge to practice Shintoism. It is all about mental attitude. Ethics and esthetics are closely intertwined.
Shinto has no founder. The mental attitude—as opposed to the words and sermons—of the priests that are deeply committed to the devout life can move many hearts. Shinto has no idols. Shinto has no organization. They don’t have temples but shrines. Shinto begins and ends with harai. The art of restoring balance. Also central in Shinto is misogi or purification. There are four types of purification, seimei seichoku: clean, bright, right and straight. Bright also means happy whereas straight means honest. Seimei means a clean and happy attitude of inner mind that is achieved by purification. Seichoku means right action or behavior as well as the social aspect of being right, not committing any crime or offense, and behaving with honesty openness and frankness towards others.
There is life after death and the body is in essence just discarded as unclean after death. Burials are too unclean for taking place at shrines. Purifying the mind means purifying our words and thoughts and straightening our way of thinking and way we experience reality. For it is always so easy for human minds to expand lazily and limitlessly and in so doing lose stability.
The priest of Shinto is therefore supposed to radiate a certain charisma which he or she obtains from generating a mental attitude where words and thoughts are purified. It is more important that they radiate this attitude than that they impress people with words. I can’t help thinking about if it is possible to clean one’s thoughts or not. How do we know what to discard in order not to lose creativity? In my mind it would be important to have one’s mind as a laboratory for the preparation of speech and writings so one cleaning procedure is what to retain in the spoken language or writings. It is obviously possible to remove profanities from processing but not from memory so they might still have unknown effects. By keeping one’s mind active on more noble pursuits it would seem one could generate better ideas?
It is not clear from the book whether or not thoughts are supernatural or part of the body. You go to a shrine to have a Kami descend on you after having cleaned yourself but there is talk of a dualism with body and spirits. Thought processes might therefore be spiritual in character. In Religious Humanism, like Spinoza originally suggested, they are part of the body but might not be material in the sense of consisting of atoms but rather being results of atom processes. In Shinto they might think they want to harmonize thoughts with Kami and thus the need for purification. In Religious Humanism this would not be so important.

Perhaps the World's Most Important Idea?

Locke discussed, some people think, the notion of State of Nature with Hobbes' view of a State of War. Locke did not agree, however, and suggested that Laws of Nature governed the moral of people that behaved. Not all though, so a state was necessary to enforce the laws.

Although Grotius had claimed that the laws come from people and do not need God, Locke believed that God gave the moral to people and were against atheists. No one, however, was divinely given the right to rule over other people.

Spinoza, who was born 1632, as was Locke, then explained that God was Nature and therefore a very modern view that morals are coded genetically was in principle there already in the 17th century.

What Locke said was however in tune with his time and the self-evidentness of mans right to life, liberty and property gave rise to the American Revolution that later returned the grace to Europe and saved the 20th century from ruin twice.

Locke was actually a trained physician and his notion of morals as biological might have been the single most powerful idea of all times? Political Science starts here.

Political Islam and Muslims in Sweden?

Veiled Truths Foreign Affairs: "If a culture war against Islam is not the answer, then how should Western liberals respond to genuinely popular and nonviolent Islamist movements that are committed to working within democratic institutions but that promote values at odds with progressive standards of freedom, equality, and tolerance?"

Dilsa Demirbag-Sten conludes in a recent DN.se piece that we should work on what we have in common not what separates us. She says that we should look forward and things will be easier. I like that liberal impulse: keep as little of old folly as possible. Like myself Demirbag-Sten has realized that religion must be private for a multicultural society to function without too much friction. Sweden then is different from Germany where they have more problems with immigrants. Less secular more Catholic.

So what do we have in common with people that claim they want to have their own legal society within ours? How do we compare on how we view leadership? The problem with people on the so called left is that they traditionally have vouched for authoritarian leadership ad modum Stalin etc. and we are probably seeing a gradient in Europe from east to West. How are Muslims prone to political Islam doing on Freedom, Equality and Tolerance? And what we call democracy, when they come from countries traditionally very authoritative in character.

Marc Lynch's article above discusses the difference in opinion between Tariq Ramadan and Paul Berman that differ a lot on how they relate to political Islam. Berman belongs to those that think political Islam can be compared to Nazism. This is what Binjamin Nethanyahu, the Israelian Prime Minister, has done with Iran's politics. This is what always surfaces when the politics of Geert Wilders of The Netherlands is discussed, that has been popular recently here in Europe.

Berman says that the threat is not extremists but rather the moderate Muslims that "draw well-meaning liberals into a poisonous embrace". So being a person that has tolerated Muslims, I have to ask myself if I'm fooled into this embrace or not? If Muslims of political Islam is setting up their own "systems" of people with sharia law they are in essence not different from Swedes that themselves set up voluntary systems with their own laws, or rules. I know from experience that some of these systems are overtly supremacist which I despise. As long as the number of Muslims only amount to some 5-10% of the population there should, however, not be any problem in my humble opinion.

Turkey as a relay between the West and Iran?

The Region: Meanwhile, in the ME...: "The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image and power behind in order to escape... The [American] government has no influence [to stop]... the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties and Iran-Turkey ties – God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.”"

Barry Rubin at The Jerusalem Post uses this citation from Ahmadinejad of Iran to illustrate what he calls the real problem of the Middle East rather than the Israel-Palestine question in general and the Jerusalem development in particular. Israel is apparently split on the relative importance of Iran (right) or Palestine (left). For Sweden this means that if Ahmadinejad is the boss rather than Erdogan of Turkey, we can become party of the wrong side if a strong Turkey, Irak friendliness is cultivated.

However, Turkey is of course a more cultivated society than that of Iran at this point--democratic as it is. It could therefore be argued that, there would be more influence flowing from Turkey to Iran than vice versa. This could be positive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has however given signs of "revolutionary" tendencies by claiming that assimilation of Turks in Europe is a crime against humanity, thus fueling irritation and fear of a development of a Eurabia.

If the hawks in the US are correct, Iran's tendency to regime change is more likely that their giving up nuclear ambitions, such which can give them the impression that they are leading Turkey along. It seems unlikely that a NATO member such as Turkey would get too subservient with Iran though, unless they become less revolutionary, although people claim they have been distancing themselves from Europe recently. The two countries Iran and Turkey have about the same GDP being on rank 17 and 18, respectively in the world with about the same size populations, 66m and 76m, respectively, which makes Iran a little wealthier per capita.

According to General Petraeus, Iran is more and more intent on fighting the US in the area and it is therefore more and more difficult seeing them as possible to integrate in the international community which is the prerequisite for diplomacy to work. They might simply be too wild. As Rubin points out, this is a bad development. Israel has a GDP of $205bn whereas Iran and Turkey each have approximately $850bn.

Turkey thus seems to have become a relay station for a tug of war between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In all probability this is one of the reasons for Sweden and the US to hesitate in calling Turkish history for what it is. As I have said earlier, I think this is wrong. Not heeding what the US Congress and the Swedish Parliament is arguing concerning the recognition of the 1915 genocide is giving in to dark forces and thus helping those in Turkey that obscur history and prevent reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey in the long run.

The recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature (2006) and the German Booksellers Prize (2005), Orhan Pamuk spoke up for the recognition of the genocide. He was apparently saved from prison, after having being charged for non-Turkishness, by the upcoming discussion of EU enlargment. It matters to Turkey what Europeans think, apparently. At least as far back as 2006, when this happened.

The "risk to American lives in the region" argument?

For the first time there are voices questioning Israel’s strategic value - Times Online: "As America becomes more deeply involved in the Arab and Muslim worlds, with nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan, it will challenge anything that may threaten US lives".

This is an interesting argument but it seems erroneous because it treats the presence of American soldiers as settlers in the region. These soldiers are rather in the area to stand up for democracy and human rights. The argument was apparently also used as support for not calling the massacres of Armenians and others in 1915 a genocide by the Bush administration and perhaps also by the Obama administration since they tried to prevent the Congressional Committee to vote for the recognition of a genocide recently.

It might mean that there has been a shift from the presence of troops in the region short time to a long time perspective even if the rhetoric says otherwise. Such a change of opinion of the US government and military would be a disaster for Israel who naturally is a constant irritant for Muslims in the area and elsewhere. Whatever they do represents a risk to American lives. In the present dispute on Jerusalem settlements the AIPAC Jewish lobbying group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is for Nethanyahu and the alternative lobbying group J-Street against. The dispute is taken seriously not only for the embarrassment for Joe Biden but also for Obama who is due visiting the largest Muslim country in the world, his childhood home, Indonesia.

However, trying to understand Nethanyahu in this debacle it seems like he is operating from the point of view of his own reality. Obama currently, with his friendliness towards non-democratic, poor human right respecting Muslim countries, is regarded very poorly in Israel. Nethanyahu's reality in the US is AIPAC and others sympathetic with the quest and history of Israel. These are people that unlike the UN Security Council Resolution 478 from 1980 think winning against aggressors in the six-day war entitled Israel morally to keep certain areas for their future defence. Jimmy Carter's administration abstained from the vote in the resolution. Things have changed.

Politics and Religion

Defectors Say Church of Scientology Hides Abuse - NYTimes.com: "Mr. Davis, the church’s current spokesman, said Scientologists are no different from Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Amish who practice shunning or excommunication.
“These are common religious tenets,” he said. “The very survival of a religion is contingent on its protecting itself.”"

Found this comment on the practices of the Church of Scientology. I must say that mixing power and religion leads to this kind of political religion and it is therefore I firmly believe in having a private faith and then participate in whatever political circumstance that one might belong to. I hope faith is becoming something personal rather than something that other people shove down your throat. Being part of a politically oriented Church must be very difficult. Many conflicts with society. If this becomes prevalent, it might mean that society will fragment totally. Small popedoms all over the place.

When it comes to the meaning of life, it would be interesting to know if mankind could agree upon such an issue. Probably different people have different meanings that makes them tick. It is therefore ecumenics is a questionable goal. Some people might believe that enlightenment comes from advances in science whereas others might believe having a good time is more appropriate. You can make a pile of money and then help fund science or you can participate yourself in the actual pursuit. A Religious Humanist can also participate giving moral support and pay their taxes.

Politics and religion

Isolera inte religionen från politiken « Dagen.se: "Tron är, enligt min uppfattning, inte mycket värd om den är isolerad från tankar och handlingar."

Alf Svensson defends the person who is religious all week and not only during the week-end. He claims it is necessary to avoid such a double nature. He is against a person that has religion as something private. However, religion is not isolated from politics when considering the hospital and the social service. They are governed by politicians and medical professionals these days. However, what is left of religion for the individual and its expressions is more private today. It has to do with faith and not so much by the Congregation. Especially in Sweden where so few attend Church each week. There are other communes and I guess they require etiquette as well. This is probably why there are so many "seekers".

I can't help remembering a recent article in SvD.se where a priest Tysk from Ovansjö says that he feels embarrassed over the attempt of Jan Björklund, the politician, when he did what Alf Svensson does in his article right now, namely defends Christianity's place in the Swedish society. Tysk meant that it is up to the Congregations to teach religion to their members. It is not so important for Björklund's school to furnish this knowledge any more. I think Tysk has a good point. The priest's attitude towards the politician, however, could be discussed.

Svensson says that faith is not much worth if isolated from thoughts and acts. He also cites the Ten Commandments which are also guidance for acts which seems then to be what Svensson believes is important with religion and with faith. He seeks guidance on the path of life. I am more interested in the meaning of life. I, as a person of the faith Religious Humanism, search God via science. I consider myself an insignificant part of Nature, or God, that tries to understand more of the whole. The unknown as revealed by science will continue to enlighten us all. Björklund's school must then handle more of the interrelationships since so few children attend Church and all go to school. Here the critique from 'Humanisterna' is also relevant. Ethics is not solely a Christian affair.

The most relevant aspect of Religious Humanism is that it suggests that the image of God and religion should be set free to evolve with science rather than being so strongly tied down by tradition. Right now I believe religions should be private but in a future not only science and religion will fuse but political science will guide politics more. I have understood that political conservatives have me down as someone preaching "scientism" which apparently has the reputation of collectivism. Probably because of scientific racism of the 1920s to 1940s. It will become clear, however, that science will guide politics more in the future and this means that Religious Humanism will engage also politics. After all, God wants us all to get along together.

In summary, Jesus healed the sick, donated to the poor, helped the orphan and the widow. Today the secular society does all this in addition it furnishes an education and work ethic, even teaches the kids to love each other. What is left of religion currently is more private, no doubt.

Eurabia?

Blond bombshell Geert Wilders returns to Britain, looking for a fight - Times Online: "On February 20 the Dutch centrist coalition Government collapsed, deeply divided over keeping troops in Afghanistan, paving the way for a general election in June in which the Freedom Party is expected to do extremely well. Polls suggest that the party will triple its tally of seats, becoming at least the second-biggest parliamentary party and quite possibly the overall winner. Mr Wilders is likely to be a key player in any coalition, with a profound impact on the political agenda."

Last time Wilders was not allowed to enter the UK. This time he is back and more popular at home. I must say I have problems with a person that wants to ban the holy book, the Quran, of a world religion. This is not serious. Furthermore he wants to slam head-scarf wearing Muslim women with a €1,000/year tax. "A head-rag tax". Not very serious either.

He is a person that equals Islamofascism with Nazism. That is not so far out, since the Israel prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu compares Ahmadinejad's Iran with the Nazi Germany of the area. Wilders is getting good press in The Jerusalem Post. However, what is such a person capable of executing and with what public support once he would be elected? There is definitely a whiff of future racist persecution over what I just wrote. On top of this we are one minaret ban vote in Switzerland and a call against Switzerland for Jihad from Muammar Gadhafi later at this point.

In other words this looks like a problem that is not going away by itself. What can be done about it? Personally I don't feel threatened by Islam and I am for freedom of religion but I intensely dislike the habit some of Islam's practitioners have to field these death threats. This is fascist methods. And it apparently works on people. There was a recent apology by the journal Politiken in Denmark for the Muhammad cartoons. Many disliked the apology though. I would not have apologized. Freedom of the press is one of the corner stones of our civilization.

Politics is more psychology than philosophy

Filosofi har inte med saken att göra Kulturdebatt SvD: "Filosofin bör hållas utanför politikens banaliteter. Detta bör konservativa intellektuella klargöra, skriver Roland Poirier Martinsson i debatten om högerns tankar."

Reading up on the recent debate on right wing political philosophy: Den upplysta konservatismen; Höger i röd kostym; Några förslag för en tänkande höger; Upplysningstiden som (konservativt) ideal; Upplysningens och konservatismens dialektik; Högeridéer missförstås avsiktligt; Högern har fel filosofer; Rätt konservatism, Rätt upplysning.

Well, it is clear from my perspective that political philosophy in fact started, for example Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, in their discussion of state of nature, as evolutionary psychology in its embryonic form. It could then be argued that Magnus Eriksson's article 'Högern har fel filosofer' might instead read 'Högern har inte tagit till sig tillräckligt av psykologin'. Ayn Rand is for example truly dreaful to read for a 'socialliberal' like myself which perhaps could be regarded as center-right.

If the right consider more psychological aspects, they would find that it is not possible with full employment and that all people cannot handle their own situation although evolutionary aspects tell that individualism must be permitted unbound for fastest possible progress. With a development perspective I would argue that science and religion will fuse first. Then they will both fuse with political science. There will however always be art and I sincerely hope that art will be allowed to develop from 'photography' to more experimental vistas.

When political philosophy has become psychology, and social liberalism the center-right, the "högern" is represented by those unwilling to change very much, "det var bättre förr" kind of guys. Such individuals are by definition in my humble experience are politically not very intellectual which is discussed in the articles above.

The center-left starts with the recognition of economical equality and to fill in on Poirier Martinsson's discussion of Johan Norberg's position, I have no idea why Norberg talks about voting for the social democrats.

What is a multicultural society?

Lena Andersson writes today in DN about the man who didn't want to take the hand of a woman prospective boss. He did not "ta seden dit man kommer" in other words he did not put important regional customs before his own rather extreme religious rules.

I have heard different versions about what actually happened and it apparently was one of these word against word affairs. Because it would of course be different if the man actually in some polite way greeted his prospective boss other than shaking his hand an looking her in her eyes.

A multicultural society can of course not be equivalent with people coming to a region and expecting to be able to live exactly like they did where they came from. That would be equivalent to an invasion. Some adaptation is of course necessary.

Religious Humanism, a religion that I am trying to develop, has the advantage of having removed itself of all these traditions that often is what cause problems with other religions. It is of course highly crippling in the Western society to not be able to shake the hand of a fellow human being and not being able to look them straight in the eyes. Belief in God and an ethical living should be possible without such anti-liberal manners as hiding in a burka.

Is there any similarity with Obama I and George III?

Sarah Palin assails Obama at 'tea party' gathering - Yahoo! News: "Catering to her crowd, Palin talked of limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and the 'God-given right' of freedom. She said the 'fresh, young and fragile' movement is the future of American politics because it's 'a ground-up call to action' to both major political parties to change how they do business. 'America is ready for another revolution!' she told the gathering."

When David Brooks wrote of is contempt for the Tea Party movement I called my post The American Revolution 2.0 because it sounded like this. Now Sarah Palin, a perhaps informal leader to this movement, says this herself. It should be noted that they are against both political parties.

At the time of the American Revolution there was a leadership of a few enlightened men and a rabble that set out to defeat the undefeatable. It is apparently the elites of today that seem to be the problem. What I would like to know is whether or not the same people were against George W. Bush? Is it the American Presidency they are out to bring down. They talk presently about not in essence having any leader!? That would make them like the EU.

With the public approval of Congress edging towards a new low of 23.5%, it is conceivable that a complete overhaul of the ruling establishment is being wished for? The Economist is running a new debate where the position of the house is that Obama is failing. The result seems to be that about half of the people think so. However, as the defendant claims people have not yet started to get personal like with George W. Bush who had below 30% approval.

The question I would like to ask the Tea Party movement is whether they are not asking for the return of a lost "way of life"? Fareed Zakaria wrote in his book the Post-American World that American government is outdated. Sarah Palin stand for a very conservative religious world view and makes a point above that it is the God-given rights that matter which seems to rule out that atheists have human rights as indicated by the Independence Declaration.

The question I would like to ask the "elite" is what the replacement of the current American Government should be?

Weapons of the past?

Remarks By Carl Bildt at the Global Zero Summit: "But from my particular European perspective I would urge for an agreement on further limits on strategic arms to be followed by talks aimed at reductions also on sub-strategic nuclear weapons."

The citation is from a thoughtful speech by Carl Bildt from a couple of days ago. Apparently President Obama does not think we will remove nuclear weapons during his lifetime and Bildt adds that this will not happen "tomorrow". I don't think nuclear weapons, by all means, is the last murderous weapon Man will invent. There will be more to come. However, for terrorists nuclear weapons can't be judged a "weapon of the past". They seem instead to be the weapons of tomorrow.

We could not prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't think we will be able to prevent Iran from this either. Bildt argues that when the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 was ratified there were five nuclear states. Now there are at least four more. He adds that we are now at a critical point and I can't agree more. This can be seen in the international press in the discussions around Iran's nuclear program. It is rogue and labile states that now are acquiring nuclear weapons with resources to start producing terrorist grade ones.

With due respect of the initiative from Bildt and Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, I believe that a progressive European perspective on the nuclear issue should be focused on the proliferation aspect. Yes, less tactical weapons might mean less chance of "broken arrows" but Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps clandestine organizations make their own gear.

North Korea and Iran are backed by China, who then does not show what the West mean by responsibility for the security of the world community. Most data speak in the direction of this meaning that we will have to live with "loose canons". It therefore seems like these weapons have to be stopped at the borders and that the discussion would have to be geared in this direction instead. After all we have the Kaliningrad and Kola weapons on our doorstep already.

Extrapolating from Chinese intent, they let North Korea through and armed Pakistan, it seems like they would not mind a Western town going up in smoke with the loss of moral this would entail. The questioning of Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the UK, recently aired the idea that the judgment of risk attached to Muslim fundamentalism allows for the destruction of 30,000 people or so. If Iran acts by proxy via Hamas and Hizbollah, it seems China is doing the same via North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The Muslim radical being their wasser träger.

Europe could then act in solidarity with the US and not sell civilian air craft and weapons to China when China is threatening the US as The Economist suggests. However, the Chinese play tough and say that Europe should sell weapons to them now so that they would be able to buy from China in the future. This is the cross roads we currently are at. Backing the US against China or joining China in potential trade wars. What are our values? Well, there is a great difference between an American Republican and a Swedish Social Democrat. But if there would be anything to the talk of human rights in the West, we are miles away from the average Chinese.

Europe should then somehow sway Iran to their side a move that would block China's proxy fight. It is really important with a peaceful solution for this equation and it is very probable that Europe would win in fair competition with China in Iran. Interestingly, this would mean going China's way on Iran which is what China probably does not want the West to do. They gamble on conflict which suits them better. A friendly Iran means a friendly Turkey and friendly diasporas in Europe. It would make the Middle East more peaceful. Both Russia and China are trying to rule by divide in Europe. China sees itself starting a new Asian dynasty and would not mind a lower grade Eurabia, although I personally don't think there is a risk for this development.

However, due to a low interest by Europeans in the G1+G1 'affairs' and due to a problem of a disunited Europe, the EU should follow the lead of the US, while still acting alone. The problem is that if the elites of Europe realize this the average European is very local in her thinking, at least according to available statistics. Therefore I see a great need for an EU minister in Sweden that can paint up the greater picture for the Swedes in that they will become true Europeans. Without even a pan-European television channel and a common language, this is a very difficult job.

The Melting Pot?

Rättsförakt i mångkulturens namn Brännpunkt SvD: "Sayed utgår från att Sverige är mångkulturellt och drar slutsatsen att vi därför måste släppa in sharialagar i svensk rättskipning."

Does culture involve legalities? In Sweden we have a legal code that is supposed to be valid for everyone. At the same time there are, I will call them systems, of people that come together under certain principles and rules, not necessarily the same as those of the legal code. There are Jews, Catholics and all kinds of constellations. And then there are of course Muslims.

If I am not mistaken, Jews and Catholics don't insist on changing the Swedish law code. Catholics cannot change the abortion law for example. They are against abortion when the Swedish law code allows it. But a woman that has made an abortion is excluded from the weekly sermon community. A punishment not prescribed by the Swedish law code.

Equality before the law involves a single law code. In theory then having a Swedish law code means that there is a society, outside the system, to which the individual can move should they feel sufficiently suppressed. In practise, however, this often means loosing all relatives and friends.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Muslims are not unique in this respect. The question is whether or not people should be allowed to form systems of people. In an enlightened society this must be allowed. Therefore I don't understand why Mr Sayed wants to merge sharia and the Swedish law.

What's worse?

Column One: Keeping Zionism's promise: "On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”"

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post writes that there is different opinions about which is worse a bomb from Iran or the World's opinion against Israel due to the Palestinian issue. She also discusses the problems in Malmö of fleeing Jews.

The problem with trying to alleviate the risk of nuclear proliferation in Iran is that bombing Iran will make Barak's worries greater. Israel seems positioned between the rock and the hard place.

The question is then of Kagan's idea of a higher probability for a regime change in Iran than that they stop their nuclear program is to wonder whether a regime change will improve the Palestinian issue by weakening the support to Hamas and Hizbollah? However, a regime change is probably easier talked about than accomplished.

The Iranian issue is otherwise heating up as Tony Blair during his questioning yesterday said that he thinks the risk we face with Iran today is greater than that with Iraq in 2003. His take on this issue must be considered important as he has travelled the Middle East for some years now as a Peace Envoy.

The decision of Blair and Bush was correct

Blair Defends Iraq War Decision - WSJ.com: "'And the decision I had to take was, given [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's] history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program?'" See also New York Times and DN.se.

Britain grilled Tony Blair for 6 hours yesterday where Blair defended his and Bush's decision of invading Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran, he had attacked Kuwait, he shot SCUD missiles on Israel, he had be brutal to the Kurds and he had been a monster to his own people. This man could have caused great harm to a Western nation.

Blair used a particularly important argument which he called the "2010 question". He said today "we would be facing a situation where Iraq would be competing with Iran on nuclear weapons capability and in support of terrorist groups".

Important critique on this type of actions have been put forward however. I'm thinking particularly of Joseph Stiglitz book on the real cost of the war, $3tn. On top of all lives this is an extremely high cost. The other thing we have learned is that coming in taking over and building a democracy that is friendly with the invaders is a very difficult thing to achieve which we have playing out now in Afghanistan. The risk for civil war is very high.

What I don't understand completely is why there are 30% of people saying that we shall bomb Iran now to prevent nuclear armament when there has been such an argumentation against the Iraq invasion. I certainly don't like Ahmadi-nejad but he does not have the same low record as Saddam Hussein. Neither have the Taliban.

Therefore I feel confident of supporting Blair and Bush on their decision.

The Sweden of equality--does populism even exist?

”Sveriges radikala elit har blivit den nya överheten” - DN.se: "Verklighetens folk har jag kallat den breda del av Sveriges befolkning som lever ett alldeles vanligt, hederligt arbetande liv och för vilka politik kommer i andra hand. Det kan vara allt från undersköterskor till professorer".

The moderates now also preach "jämlikhet", ie, equality, in a recent move to the left, otherwise the one catch-word of the Social Democrats.

When David Brooks today discusses populism in the US, he talks about populists and the elite. Göran Hägglund's "verklighetens folk", or "people like people usually are", honest hardworking people that consider politics secondarily, are not like those defined by Brooks. Brooks think more in the line of the Tea Party crowd who are politically active.

If Göran Hägglund with "radical elite" means the leftish elite that pushed eugenics, being against mentally weak people, as described by Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist in their article about the foul smell of "Folkhemmet" (S) and (SD) är samma andas barn, I can understand what he means by "verklighetens folk". Honest, non-judgemental, people. But is Hägglund not falling a little in his own trap when he speaks of "verklighetens folk" as needing someone talking for them--"förmynderi", something (KD) even has been accused of in terms of alcohol practices, not to mention snuff.

Today Hägglund is inviting Muslims to join (KD). Perhaps (KD) should call themselves 'Religious Democrats'. It is of course possible that (S) has a too "förmyndande" tone against Muslims and that they would feel more at home in a less Folkhemish and state-prone party. Bard and Söderqvist group (S) and (SD) together because they idealize a nostalgic past as something Swedish. If (KD) wants to market "verklighetens folk" as something not so Folkhemish, more plural, and stand out from (SD), inviting Muslims to join might be a good idea.

In a modern multicultural party it is obviously important to distance oneself from the Biblical shepherd and his sheep. "Verklighetens folk", as Hägglund have described them, seem unfortunately a little sheepish. I guess people do not really want to be identified as sheep in this modern individualistic and innovative world. Being a conservative party, (KD) would have problems with too much tradition in this respect.

Can Turkey become more important for the US than Israel?

RealClearWorld - Dissecting Israel-Turkey Diplomatic Row: "Washington has observed this, too, and so regards Turkey as a key part of its strategy to draw down the U.S. presence in Iraq. Turkey does not want to see massive instability in Iraq any more than the Americans do. Similarly, in any confrontation with Iran, Turkey is both a communications channel and a potential ally. Further afield, Turkey is contributing to the Western war effort in Afghanistan, and has substantial influence in the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia".

Turkey is already more important for the EU than is Israel from the point of view as a potential member of the union. From this point of view it might be unfortunate for Israel to challenge Turkey diplomatically as it has done first on the Davos conference and now in Israel. It forces both the EU and the US to take sides.

In Davos Israel was viewed as conspiring with the US in humiliating Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turish Prime Minister, by not letting him respond after Shimon Peres, the Israeli President, had spoken at a session. Erdogan was particularly incensed by the Gaza attack where many Palestinians died. Due to the strong Western response against the Gaza attack Erdogan was able to take a point against Israel given this opportunity.

Now recently Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon summoned the Turkish Ambassador to Israel Ahmet Oguz Celikkol to protest for the appearance of a soap-opera aired in Turkey that depicted Israeli agents kidnapping Palestinian children. It was the way the meeting was staged that was the problem. The incident reminds me of a newspaper article written in Sweden that claimed that the IDF where stealing organs from Palestinians. My feeling from this incident was that Israel lost the public relations battle in Sweden and that it might therefore lose also in Turkey. Apparently Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is planning to expel ambassadors from countries that has criticized Israel unfairly.

It is fair to ask if these incidences are any of my business. However, Israel's position as a country with the potential of launching a nuclear war with Iran is I guess in everyone's business.

The ten commandments?

Ronald, 70, överklagar örfilsdomen Nyheter Aftonbladet: "70-årige Ronald Fasth i Värnamo som dömts till dagsböter efter att ha örfilat en tolvårig pojke som kallat honom gubbjävel överklagar domen till hovrätten.
– Jag vill löpa linan ut, säger han till Värnamo Nyheter."

How good are the ten commandments in telling if a person is good or not? There is nothing about hitting children as a corrective measure or to beat people on the street because you don't like what they say. I hope Ronald is not vindicated on his injustice.

The first three commandments are about monotheism and the one on the Sabbath is also passé.

I like the one on the honoring of the father and the mother but recent events in societal organization has challenged this commandment to the bone.

Not stealing and not killing is just common law as is the one on bearing false witness against your neighbor. The last one is in essence a duplication.

I like the one about adultery but it is not illegal anymore.

So, there are many ethical judgments that make a person good that is not taken up by the commandments. Personally I think the verdict against Ronald is more important than it seems. In my experience medieval corporal punishment is on its way back. This development has to be reversed.

You shall kill, sometimes?

Åkesson tar Svenssons plats Politik Debattämnen Debatt Aftonbladet: "I så fall behöver Jimmie Åkesson bara bli varm i kläderna, för att klara av vad Göran Hägglund misslyckats med, det vill säga bli en värdig efterträdare till Alf Svensson i svensk politik."

Torbjörn Tännsjö seems to say that Alf Svensson is against immigration and I guess that Svensson will have to answer for himself. Åkesson and Svensson are apparently both against abortions. When he says "honorable" successor of Svensson, I guess he reveals much about his own character and political views.

However, what I want to comment on is the low rating of humans that Tännsjö is advocating when he claims that people don't care about what is claimed by a politician as long as it has a high contrast. I thought that when people vote for a person rather than when they vote for a party they make an evaluation of that person's character as it appears. The character of a leader is going to have a profound impact on how they will act not only today but also in the future. This is why Reinfeldt is so much a more promising candidate than is Sahlin. He projects as a better leader. The conservative right is moving leftward in Sweden, which might be another explanation for KDs low ratings.

Apparently Tännsjö has written a book called You shall sometimes kill (Du ska understundom dräpa). This title makes the probability for my reading of it very low. I, like Göran Hägglund, don't think physicians should kill. Not even sometimes. There was a debate on the radio in the program Studio Ett the other day where this issue was discussed. Apparently, the county's physicians are improving the means of caring for people that are about to die. It will be possible to lower the consciousness of a patient if pain, anxiety or other ailments can't be managed in another fashion.

Tännsjö is apparently a humanist and as such seethes a highly critical attitude against religion which is apparent from his article. This attitude is not longer understandable since approximateely 80% of the population is known to believe, most of which have some kind of faith. I myself belong to this majority of mankind that has faith, I call my faith religious humanism, but without any disdain for people who do have faith in Christ.

Spiritual Energy and Astrology?

For those of you that thought Astrology had disappeared since Johannes Kepler there is new information from the Pew Forum of an increase in people that believe in a spiritual energy in physical things like mountains, trees and crystals and in astrology (the position of stars and planets can affect a person's life) in the US. As much as 25% of people that have a conventional religion believe in such a fashion. Such pheomena need not be supernatural.

I find this very interesting because of my own religion Religious Humanism which is a kind of pantheism. The poll claims that more and more younger persons believe in this fashion so it is a trend that is coming in in this way. If the whole Universe is God, it might indeed have an affect on you that is unknown today.

Perhaps it is a sign of people respecting the unknown more than earlier. Respect for the power of science as a means of finding out more. That there is indeed more to find out.

It is otherwise conceivable that people might start to think that we will reach a new plateau of learning and like the Greeks be followed by a stage in history where not much new findings became known. I have heard from distinguished scientists that we just have this or that left to explain and I find this very odd.

The poll also describes that more and more people attend services of other denominations and even other faiths. This might mean that faith is becoming more of a private issue for the individual and that the congregation is losing influence or is substituted with other organizational forms.

If the development is the same in Europe, this would mean that we would get less and less problems from the religious differences of people.

Thanks to Charles M. Blow at the New York Times for the reference to the poll.