THE PRESIDENT:
Good afternoon, everybody. There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place. This is one of those moments. This is one of those times. The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.
By stepping down, President Mubarak responded to the Egyptian people’s hunger for change. But this is not the end of Egypt’s transition. It’s a beginning. I’m sure there will be difficult days ahead, and many questions remain unanswered. But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers, and do so peacefully, constructively, and in the spirit of unity that has defined these last few weeks. For Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.
The military has served patriotically and responsibly as a caretaker to the state, and will now have to ensure a transition that is credible in the eyes of the Egyptian people. That means protecting the rights of Egypt’s citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible, and laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free. Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table. For the spirit of peaceful protest and perseverance that the Egyptian people have shown can serve as a powerful wind at the back of this change.
The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. We stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary — and asked for — to pursue a credible transition to a democracy. I’m also confident that the same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that the young people of Egypt have shown in recent days can be harnessed to create new opportunity — jobs and businesses that allow the extraordinary potential of this generation to take flight. And I know that a democratic Egypt can advance its role of responsible leadership not only in the region but around the world.
Egypt has played a pivotal role in human history for over 6,000 years. But over the last few weeks, the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace as the Egyptian people demanded their universal rights.
We saw mothers and fathers carrying their children on their shoulders to show them what true freedom might look like.
We saw a young Egyptian say, “For the first time in my life, I really count. My voice is heard. Even though I’m only one person, this is the way real democracy works.”
We saw protesters chant “Selmiyya, selmiyya” — “We are peaceful” — again and again.
We saw a military that would not fire bullets at the people they were sworn to protect.
And we saw doctors and nurses rushing into the streets to care for those who were wounded, volunteers checking protesters to ensure that they were unarmed.
We saw people of faith praying together and chanting – “Muslims, Christians, We are one.” And though we know that the strains between faiths still divide too many in this world and no single event will close that chasm immediately, these scenes remind us that we need not be defined by our differences. We can be defined by the common humanity that we share.
And above all, we saw a new generation emerge — a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days…that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever.
This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they’ve done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence — not terrorism, not mindless killing — but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.
And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can’t help but hear the echoes of history — echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice.
And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can’t help but hear the echoes of history — echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice.
As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, “There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom.” Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note.
Today belongs to the people of Egypt, and the American people are moved by these scenes in Cairo and across Egypt because of who we are as a people and the kind of world that we want our children to grow up in.
The word Tahrir means liberation. It is a word that speaks to that something in our souls that cries out for freedom. And forevermore it will remind us of the Egyptian people — of what they did, of the things that they stood for, and how they changed their country, and in doing so changed the world.
Thank you.
——-
Comment: Mubarakobama-Pinocchio continues a proud American tradition: “declare victory and leave”.
@Guthman: one ‘third thought’ – I want to address the issue of violence a little more specifically.
In the above post I indicated that I did not believe that Orthodox Christians (who, in my opinion, are member of the Church established by Christ) are better people than any other group, faith or secular or atheistic people. Furthremore, there have been instances of Orthodox clergymen and bishops who condoned and approved of violence and even instigated or triggered it. So in no way would I ever claim that Orthodox Christians are non-violent people. What I do claim, is that traditional (“real”) CHRISTIANITY is non-violent or, to be a little more exact, that it places very strong restrictions on the instances in which it does not condemn violence. Orthodox monastics, who represent the Christian ideal, are called to a life on complete non-violence, for example. I would even add that, unlike the Papacy, the Orthodox Church has therefore historically not justified violence as a means of proselytism ad majorem Dei gloriam. Lastly, Christ Himself, was absolutely non-violent, though some might interpret His expulsion of money traders from the Temple as an example of his violence. In that latter case, I would refer those inclined to such interpretations to the Patristic witness, to the consensus patrum on that issue as doing so would be the traditional Christian manner to establish the meaning of any part of the Scripture.
Ok, I think I am done for now. I can get off my soapbox and grab some much needed coffee.
Cheers!
The Saker
The Nazarene in action:
(Revelation)
19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; (19:17-18)
“Come … unto the supper of the great God.”
An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, “both free and bond, both small and great.”
19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (19:20-21)
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. “And all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”
19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
@Guthman: you do realize that the Book of Revelation is not a historical or even literal description of anything, right?
In fact, the Church Fathers were very reluctant to include this book in the Scripture Canon precisely because of such home-baked literal interpretation thereof.
Guthman – you can quote me the quasi-genocidal commands of God in the Old Testament, the various condemnations of sinners in the New Testament,or any other book of the Christian Tradition you can find, but don’t you see that taking that book out of its historical, hermeneutical and Traditional context is as silly as taking one gear in a watch and try to make sense of it?
Some books are historical, others are prophetical, others are normative and some are poetic. In the book of Esther, which describes a bloody vengeance against non-Jews who conspired to massacre Jews the word “God” is never mentioned. Do you think that the book of Esther is a normative book whose narrative is presented as a behavior to emulate?
Now I understand that for a secular mind used to reading the Scripture in the same manner as a telephone book or a newspaper this might sound crazy, but for a religious person there is an entire method by which the Scripture must be approached. Of course, secularists will call this method a way to put whatever spin you want on the text, and I don’t expect them to endorse that. What I would ask of them is to understand that we, religious people, simply do not to approach the Scripture or its exegesis in the same way they read Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russel.
Again you are trying to separate secularism from the instantiations of its very cosmological foundation.
You are once again trying to conflate “secularism.” which is a distinct ideology, with secularity, which is the default condition of the human race and is almost always incidental to human activities. The obvious flaw in your reasoning is to define everything that is non-religious as “secular” and therefore, morally and philosophically equivalent. This kind of thinking is identical to those Jews who divide the world into Jews and goyim, with all goyim being seen as some amorphous but congruous “other.” The hundreds of thousands of activities, beliefs, institutions and indviduals that fall under your umbrella of “secular” are more often than not so distinct in philopsohy and purpose as to defy any meaningful and honest attempt to lump them into one category. When the Pope takes a shit, that is a secular activity. I am pretty sure he would like to see it kept that way, but that hardly puts him in the same category as genocidal communists, nor is his secular activity the equivalent in philosophy or purpose as Paul Kurtz’s.
So it is is meanginless and false to discuss “secularism” in the way you use it, as most secular activities are philosophically and morally neutral. Secularity is the default state of our being until someone comes along and pins religious meaning onto a particular activity. As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, it is a category that is too broad to have any comprehensive or useful meaning, just like “non-Jews.” This is why I limit the discussion to “secularism” as an ideology, as it IS a distinct philosophy whose adherants have many beliefs in common, as do Christians.
It is not “idealizing” secularism to state that there is no regime in human history that has embraced the ideal of separation of church and state that has then gone on to outlaw or persecute any religion. It is a statement of fact. None of the major secular organizations hold as a matter of philosophy the idea that they, or the state, get to dictate to religious people how they should live their lives, except in obvious matters where the practices of religious people may endanger the liberty and safety of others. You may speculate what the evil Paul Kurtz might do if he came to power, but that is all you can do, speculate. You have no facts to back this line of thinking.
By contrast, there are hundreds of thousands of examples throughout history of religious sects attempting to impose their will by force on other people. There is no shortage of religious organizations today that publicly and openly proclaim their belief that they have a right to impose their moral views on society, and that they are in fact being “persecuted” by a secular society that refuses to allow them to do so. A good example is the gay marriage debate, where religionists feel that allowing gays to marry somehow interferes with their religious rights, as if they were themselves being forced to marry gay people, rather than being forced to mind their own business and stay out of other people’s lives, as they should.
Religious wars have everything to do with religion. The leaders who fight them may be cynical opportunists, but religion is the tool they use to get people to carry out acts of violence, brutality and oppression. Once you convince people that you are the spokesperson for the creator of the universe you can pretty much get them to do anything, which is one of the things that makes religion so dangerous. Religionists insist they have a monopoly on morality, but history demonstrates how readily people with religious beliefs can be convinced to engage in immoral and barbaric behavior by their leaders.
part 2
On the other hand, the relation of materialism to secularism is more intrinsic. So wars fought for the sake of oil or other material gain are more intrinsically “secular,
All human activity that is not religious is intrinsically “secular” but that is because secularity is the default condition of the human race. War is by default a secular activity, just as eating is. It becomes a religious activity when religion is used to justify the war or encourage religious believers to fight in it. Eating can become a religious activity when you dedicate your meal to the lord. This is the point you continuously fail to grasp. Almost all secular activities are philosophically neutral until some meaning is given to them. Religious activities are NEVER philosphically neutral, as the activity has been infused with religious meaning, or it would not be a religious activity. War is NOT an expression of secularism as an ideology.
You claim I am distancing myself from Paul Kurtz—as if I need to. Last i checked, no one had appointed Mr Kurtz the Pope of secularism. He speaks for himself and his organization, and I have yet to see any solid evidence he is the anti-religious tyrant-in-waiting people here claim he is. Claiming that secularism is the biggest force of destruction in the last 100 years is complete nonsense. You are making a causal connection between a distinct ideology and activities that were never carried out in the name of that ideology. The communists did not believe in separation of church and state. They did not claim to be acting in the name of secularism, but communism. Their behavior was identical to that of every major religion throughout history that has tried to impose its will by force. Communism was just another violent, oppressive evangelical religious movement that sought to destroy the competition the way all such religions do.
Not a literal description of anything? Tell that to your friendly dispensationalist neighbors in Florida. (snark alert).
Besides, premeditated self-sacrifice is an ultra-violent act all in itself.
Oh my, I am arguing again… cantankerous me seemingly can’t help himself. Plus non-violence is not even an ideal of mine… Go figure.
@Guthman: Not a literal description of anything? Tell that to your friendly dispensationalist neighbors in Florida.
I could. I could also talk to my LDS (Mormon) neighbors (great folk, BTW). And I could argue with Moonies who fancy themselves Christians. And the folks of the Great Pentacostal Church of Christ the Lord of Zion of the Pre-Latter Days, Reformed, Evangelical and Biblical (GPCCLZPLDREB – I made that name up, but its sounds like what you would see in Florida), but I would I bother?
Don’t you get it yet? Live and let live. Let them believe whatever they way. Ditto for the Church of Salvific Popcorn Ingestion (CSPI) or the Flat Earth Society or the Rahelians and their Elohim ET friends. I really don’t care what they believe or what they call themselves. Not one bit.
ALL I am saying is that their teachings are not the ones of the faith “established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers”, that’s all. Theirs might be infinitely better (at least they are free to think so), but its not the “real thing”.
I am saying is that Christianity is not whatever anybody and everybody wants it to be. It is something which has an objective content and an objective historical reality.
That’s all :-)
@EVERYBODY:
This thread has 82 comments (-: and counting :-)
I think that this is a record for this blog.
Thanks to all for your contribution to this!!!
It was and is my intention to leave this topic for now, and readers can parse my earlier comments and easily develop a full reply to Sean. Only one subtle point:
==================
You are once again trying to conflate “secularism.” which is a distinct ideology, with secularity, which is the default condition of the human race and is almost always incidental to human activities.
:
Secularity is the default state of our being until someone comes along and pins religious meaning onto a particular activity.
==================
The first principle, that secularity “is the default condition of the human race and is almost always incidental to human activities”, presumes the Secular/Promethean cosmological commitment, or something like it. The Abrahamic/Adamic cosmological commitment precisely rejects that emphatically. There is no such thing as a purely secular activity within the Adamic meta-cosmology, not even going to the bathroom. The same goes for the second principle. Imposing the above two principles, which provide a foundation to the separation of church and state, upon followers of the Adamic paradigm itself involves coercion against those who want to live the fullness of the Adamic meta-cosmological commitment.
Once that is clear, the rest of your rebuttal falls apart, and readers can decide for themselves. I will not parse it at the moment, and I believe that I have provided enough conceptual tools — in need of refinement of course but the basics are there — in my earlier replies for anyone who wishes to reply in more detail.
But do read “Religion vs Religion” if you get a chance. Totally different framework and terminology from mine, but very insightful.
======================
The obvious flaw in your reasoning is to define everything that is non-religious as “secular” and therefore, morally and philosophically equivalent.
======================
That is certainly not what I said. Rather, recent Western history is dominated by the tension between two distinct meta-cosmological commitments. I did not say that they are absolutely jointly exhaustive or the like. This confusion results in part from missing the earlier subtle point.
======================
It is not “idealizing” secularism to state that there is no regime in human history that has embraced the ideal of separation of church and state that has then gone on to outlaw or persecute any religion. It is a statement of fact.
======================
Just one counterexample from amongst many: France has recently banned Muslim women from freely wearing hijab in general in some places, and certain types of Muslim clothing have been absolutely banned, explicitly because it is claimed that they interfere with the secular nature of the state.
Since you have expressed a universal proposition, it takes only one counterexample to prove it false. If someone is going to suggest that
1) France is not truly secular in the sense you have described;
Then your secular ideal is an uninstantiated phantom separate from the history and practice of secularism.
Or if someone suggests
2) Banning hijab is not really persecution;
then that will be an exercise in self-delusion.
=====================
You may speculate what the evil Paul Kurtz might do if he came to power
=====================
For the record, I don’t think Paul Kurtz is evil. He is an honest man sincerely dedicated to the articulation, promulgation, and implementation of a particular instantiation of the secular ideal. But I do believe that the secular ideal he promotes is quite wrong, and that the Promethean cosmological commitment underlying virtually all secular ideologies is false.
:
Sheesh; I wrote much more than intended :-)
I leave further reply to others, and
Peace