90 U.S. nuclear scientists urge Congress to protect Iran deal

TEHRAN – More than 90 top U.S. nuclear scientists have written a letter to Congress urging it to protect the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran.

The letter reads as follows:

October 30, 2017

Senator Bob Corker, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senator Ben Cardin, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Representative Ed Royce, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Representative Eliot Engel, Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Dear Senators Corker and Cardin, and Representatives Royce and Engel

The United States Congress has momentous responsibilities with regard to the nuclear agreement with Iran. As scientists who understand the physics and technology of nuclear power, of nuclear explosives, and of long-range missiles; and who collectively bring experience with nuclear nonproliferation, we would like to provide you with our perspective on the wisest path forward.

Recent statements by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, and Iran make clear that renegotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) is an unrealistic objective. Since the JCPoA imposes strict restrictions and strong verification on Iran’s nuclear program, Congress should act to ensure that the United States remains a party to the agreement. Along with assuring the continuation of the agreement, this will allow the United States to influence its implementation, including inspections at military installations, through its position on the Joint Commission.

The JCPoA does not cover non-nuclear activities by Iran; any such issues could be addressed separately. For example, recent reports suggest that Iran might be open to mutually respectful negotiations addressing limits to Iran’s missile program. We encourage you to recommend that the United States pursue this potential opportunity.

President Trump has expressed concerns about the long-term implications of the JCPoA for Iran’s nuclear program. The severe restrictions on Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium remain in place through 2030, and continuous surveillance of Iran’s centrifuge production through 2035. Surveillance of uranium mines and mills remains through 2040. Thereafter, Iran returns fully to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards under the “Additional Protocol,” the strongest set of generally applicable safeguards implemented by the IAEA. In contrast, during most of its prior history, Iran’s nuclear program was subject only to the minimum level of IAEA safeguards.

There are additional measures that would make it more difficult for any country with enrichment facilities to produce secretly material for weapons. First, it would be valuable to have stronger verification procedures at uranium enrichment plants worldwide. In particular, the IAEA should implement real-time verification at large-scale uranium enrichment plants in non-nuclear weapon states where the IAEA is unable to reach a “Broader Conclusion” of the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

Second, multi-national control of uranium enrichment plants—such as a strengthened version of the arrangements within the European company URENCO—could provide an extra layer of security against their misuse to produce material for nuclear weapons, due to oversight by officials of multiple nationalities. Congress should recommend that the Executive Branch, in collaboration with all other member states of the IAEA and the IAEA itself, work to strengthen uranium enrichment plant safeguards worldwide, and implement multi-national control of uranium enrichment capabilities. Continuation of the JCPoA is necessary to provide the time needed to develop and implement these initiatives.

We hope that you will take into account the perspectives presented here. We stand ready to discuss these matters in more detail with you at your request.

Sincerely

Richard L. Garwin
Member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
National Medal of Science (2002)
Presidential Medal of Freedom (2016)

Robert J. Goldston
Professor, Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University

Rush Holt
Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science

R. Scott Kemp
Associate Professor, Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT
Director, MIT Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy

Frank von Hippel
Senior Research Physicist and Professor of Public and International Affairs, Emeritus,
Princeton University
(Affiliations for identification only)
All communications should be addressed to Robert Goldston at rjg@Princeton.edu
Additional signatories on the following pages:
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 3

Also signed by:

Elihu Abrahams
Department of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

James Acton
Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Stephen L. Adler Professor Emeritus, School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Peter Agre
Bloomberg Distinguished Professor and Director, Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Chemistry, 2003)
Barry C. Barish Linde Professor of Physics, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2017)

R. Stephen Berry
James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago Member of the National Academy of Sciences
William Bialek John Archibald Wheeler/Battelle Professor in Physics, Princeton University Visiting Presidential Professor of Physics, The Graduate Center, City University of New York Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Steven M. Block
S.W. Ascherman Professor of Sciences, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

William F. Brinkman
Senior Physicist, Physics Department, Princeton University
Vice President of Research, retired, Bell Laboratories
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 4
Matthew Bunn Professor of Practice, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Claude R. Canizares
Rossi Professor of Physics, MIT Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Roberto Car
Ralph W. Dornte '31 Professor in Chemistry, Princeton University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Moses H. Chan
Evan Pugh University Professor of Physics, Penn State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Christopher F. Chyba
Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs, Princeton University
George W. Clark Breene M. Kerr Professor of Physics, Emeritus, MIT Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Morrel H. Cohen
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Princeton University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Leon N. Cooper
Thomas J. Watson, Professor of Science, Brown University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 1972)

Susan N. Coppersmith
Robert E. Fassnacht Professor of Physics, University of Wisconsin at Madison
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Pierce S. Corden
Former Director, Office of International Security Negotiations, Department of State
John M. Cornwall Distinguished Professor of Physics, Emeritus, UCLA

Stanley Deser
Senior Research Associate, California Institute of Technology Member of the National Academy of Sciences
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 5

Bruce T. Draine
Professor of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Freeman Dyson
Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Enrico Fermi Award (1995)

James P. Eisenstein
Roshek Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, California Institute of Technology Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Harold A. Feiveson
Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

Steve Fetter
Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland

Daniel S. Fisher
Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Eduardo Fradkin
Donald Biggar Willett Professor of Physics and Director, Institute for Condensed Matter Theory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Jerome I. Friedman Institute Professor and Professor of Physics Emeritus, MIT Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Physics, 1990)

Mary K. Gaillard
Professor of the Graduate School, University of California at Berkeley Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Howard M. Georgi
Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Subrata Ghoshroy Research Affiliate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, MIT
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 6

Sheldon Lee Glashow
Arthur G.B. Metcalf Professor of Mathematics and the Sciences, Boston University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Physics, 1979)

Roy Glauber
Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Emeritus, Harvard University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2005)

Allen M. Goldman
Regents Professor of Physics, University of Minnesota
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Kurt Gottfried
Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Cornell University

Lisbeth Gronlund
Senior Scientist and Co-Director, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

David Gross
Chancellor’s Chair Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of California at Santa Barbara
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Physics, 2004)

Stephen E. Harris
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Emeritus, Stanford University Member of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering
Siegfried S. Hecker
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University Former Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
Member of the National Academy of Engineering

Martin E. Hellman
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University Member of the National Academy of Engineering
Dudley Herschbach
Professor of Physics and Chemistry, Texas A&M University at College Station
Member of the National Academy of Sciences National Medal of Science (1991)
Nobel Prize (Chemistry, 1986)
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 7

Roald Hoffmann
Frank H.T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters, Emeritus, Cornell University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
National Medal of Science (1983)
Nobel Prize (Chemistry, 1981)

Pierre C. Hohenberg
Professor Emeritus of Physics, New York University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

John P. Holdren
Science and Technology Advisor to President Obama (2009–2017) Professor, Kennedy School of Government and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Raymond Jeanloz
Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley
Chair, National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Steven Kivelson
Prabhu Goel Family Professor of Physics, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Daniel Kleppner
Lester Wolfe Professor of Physics Emeritus, MIT
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
National Medal of Science (2006)

Lawrence M. Krauss
Foundation Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University

Don Q. Lamb
Robert A. Millikan Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago
Frederick K. Lamb Research Professor of Physics; Core Faculty Member, Program in Arms Control & Domestic and International Security; Brand and Monica Fortner Endowed Chair of Theoretical Astrophysics Emeritus; Professor of Physics and Professor of Astronomy Emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 8

Neal Lane
Senior Fellow, Baker Institute for Public Policy; University Professor Emeritus, and Professor of Physics and Astronomy Emeritus, Rice University
National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal (2009)

David M. Lee
Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University at College Station
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1996)

Anthony J. Leggett
Professor of Physics, University of Illinois
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2003)

Elliott Lieb
Higgins Professor of Physics and Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Gregory A. Loew Emeritus Deputy Director and Professor, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Edwin Lyman
Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

John C. Mather
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2006)

M. Brian Maple
Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California at San Diego
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Nergis Mavalvala
Professor of Physics, MIT
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

N. David Mermin
Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Marvin Miller
Science, Technology, and Society Program, MIT
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 9
William E. Moerner Professor of Chemistry and Applied Physics, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Laureate (Chemistry, 2014)
Norman P. Neureiter Senior Advisor, International, American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal (2008)

David Nygren
Presidential Distinguished Professor, University of Texas at Arlington Member of the National Academy of Sciences

John A. Parmentola
Former Director for Research and Laboratory Management, U.S. Army Former Senior Vice President for Energy and Advanced Concepts, General Atomics

C. Kumar N. Patel
Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA
Member of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering

Claudio Pellegrini
Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Emeritus, UCLA
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

William D. Phillips
Professor of Physics, University of Maryland at College Park
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Physics, 1997)

David Pines
Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, University of California at Davis; Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Founder-in-Residence, Santa Fe Institute Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Theodore A. Postol
Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy, MIT

David E. Pritchard
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics, MIT
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Helen R. Quinn
Professor Emerita, Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 10

John D. Reppy
John L. Wetherill Professor Emeritus of Physics, Cornell University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Burton Richter
Paul Pigott Professor of Physical Sciences Emeritus, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
National Medal of Science (2014)
Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1976)

Myriam P. Sarachik
Distinguished Professor of Physics, City College of New York, City University of New York
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

John H. Schwarz
Harold Brown Professor of Theoretical Physics Emeritus, California Institute of Technology Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Roy F. Schwitters
S. W. Richardson Regents Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin

Frank Sciulli
Pupin Professor of Physics Emeritus, Columbia University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Stephen Shenker
Richard Herschel Weiland Professor of Physics, Stanford University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Melvyn Shochet
Kersten Distinguished Service Professor of Physics, University of Chicago
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.
James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize (Physics, 1993)

Max Tegmark
Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
October 30, 2017 Scientist’s Letter to Congress on Iran Deal 11

Kip S. Thorne
Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics Emeritus, California Institute of Technology
Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2017)

Maury Tigner
Director Emeritus, Laboratory of Nuclear Studies, Cornell University
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Scott Tremaine Professor, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton Member of the National Academy of Sciences

George H. Trilling
Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of California at Berkeley
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Rainer Weiss
Professor of Physics Emeritus, MIT Member of the National Academy of Sciences Nobel Prize (Physics, 2017)
Ray J. Weymann Director Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories, Carnegie Institution for Science
Member of the National Academy of Sciences

David J. Wineland
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
National Medal of Science (2007)
Nobel Prize (Physics, 2012)

David Wright

Senior Scientist and Co-Director, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

(Affiliations for identification only)

TAGS

• JCPOA
 
• Donald Trump
 
• Iran deal
 
• U.S. Congress
 
• Rex Tillerson

Saudis now want to follow ‘moderate’ Islam: really?

Crescent International

Suppose a Dalmatian (a dog breed, in case there is some confusion!) says it wants to get rid of its spots. Suppose further, that a scorpion says it would no longer sting. How much credibility should one give to these claims?

Something similar has happened in “Saudi” Arabia where the Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman announced yesterday that “We are returning to what we were before—a country of ‘moderate’ Islam that is open to all religions and to the world.”

Bin Salman (BS for short) was speaking at the Future Investment Initiative, an economic forum in Riyadh attended among others by Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde. There were also business leaders from around the world.

BS announced plans to create a totally new city at a price of $500 billion. What would be different in this city, to be named Neom that other cities in the opaque kingdom do not offer?

The ambitious young prince wants to lead the way in the use of drones, driverless cars and robotics.

Interestingly, the kingdom only recently announced that women would be allowed to drive cars, but from next year. Why not allow them to drive immediately was not made clear.

Is the idea of driverless cars a way to placate the country’s conservative elements that are not happy with allowing women to drive? They allege that women driving cars would lead to immorality!

We need to return to BS’s claim of representing “moderate” Islam and his pledge to work to defeat extremist ideas. He said this would ensure that young Saudis live in harmony with the rest of the world.

“We will eradicate the remnants of extremism very soon. We represent the moderate teachings and principles of Islam,” BS said.

“Saudi” Arabia is a terror factory. Wahhabism is at the root of most of the sectarian problems in the world. Takfirism is its poisoned fruit that has caused havoc in much of the Muslim world.

So which “moderate” Islam is BS referring to? The very raison d’etre of “Saudi” Arabia is Wahhabism. The toxic alliance between the Bani Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab in 1744 is what ultimately led to the emergence of the “Saudi” kingdom in 1932.

“We were not like this in the past,” said BS. A reasonably informed person would say that is absolute BS. Wahhibism and extremism are two sides of the same coin; in fact they are one and the same thing. So what exactly is BS talking about and why now?

The Saudi economy has suffered massive blows as a consequence of the foolish policies pursued by BS and his demented father, King Salman. They have suffered defeats in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Low oil prices have caused havoc in the kingdom.

The Bani Saud need cash and lots of it, hence the Riyadh conference as well as the new makeover of a “moderate” outlook. Ms Lagarde’s presence was reflective of Saudi desperation. At the end of August, the regime went to the IMF with a begging bowl for $10 billion.

That is peanuts in terms of Saudi needs but these are desperate times. And the kingdom has to show it is opening up and it would no longer export extremism.

The real test would be whether the kingdom would now disband such outfits as the Rabita, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), and Dar al-Ifta that are used as fronts to spread Wahhabi extremism by dishing out largesse in the Muslim world.

There must be proof that the Saudis have stopped financing extremist madrassas in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia—the last two corrupted by large doses of cash in recent years—before BS’ pronouncements can be taken seriously.

Shariati was intellectually open to all religious and ideological horizons

By Sara Faraji & Somaye Rezaei

The late Dr. Ali Shariati is one of the most significant and influential intellectuals of the contemporary era in Iran. Even though many summits and conferences are still being held on Ali Shariati, nowadays it seems that his legacy is not used to its fullest in the scientific and intellectual assemblies and only some of his quotes and sayings are mentioned in social contexts. Ali Shariati’s children have all followed his example and turned to philosophy. His eldest son, Ehsan Shariati (born: Shahrivar 12 1338/September 3 1959 in Mashhad) has studied philosophy at Paris-Sorbonne University in France. He has worked as a guest professor at the University of Tehran and Islamic Azad University’s Science and Research Branch in Tehran. His books include Heidegger’s Philosophy and an Iranian Reading of it, Religion and Government and The Philosophy of Self in Muhammad Iqbal’s Thought.

We sat with him to talk about a range of issues including Ali Shariati’s relationship with philosophy and ideology and power, his intellectual methodology, his role and place in contemporary thought, the traditions that he belonged to as well as the reason behind the occasional attacks against him. Here is the full text of the interview: Q: Before starting our discussion about Dr. Ali Shariati and his relation with philosophy and ideology, I would like to know your opinion on the philosophy/ideology dichotomy and their respective tasks. A: Ideology, similar to religion is a general, ambiguous, elusive and ambivalent term. The word ‘idea’ (form) has a history in philosophy. Its initial meaning from the Greek root of eïdomaï was “aspect, appearance and to be seen” (the Latin counterpart ‘species’ meant shape-aspect and typical form) which later acquired the metaphysical meaning of “eidos” (the essence or nature of things). Plato turned this word into the key concept and symbol of his philosophy; e.g. the world of ideas and the ideas (forms). Therefore, ‘idea’ has an ancient history and one can even say that the history of philosophy is the history of ‘idea.’ Shariati was a scholar of comparative studies. Namely, by ideology, he is not referring to constructing a dogmatic system in which explanation manuals (risalas) are written and all questions are answered; what he does is drawing a table, where all these schools can be compared to one another.In the technical sense, after Pythagoras coined the word philosophia, Plato is the first person who has done philosophy. He is the head of philosophers and Idealism – in its realist concept. In contrast, our modern ideology, influenced by Condillac and Locke, is a criticism of Idealism through learning ideas and recognizing the sensory origin of the development of ideas. Let us not discuss the way the word ‘idea’ is translated into Farsi. For instance, the late Ahmad Fardid translated it as ‘didar shenasi’ [knowledge of what is seen].

Since the beginning of the 19th century, after the French Revolution, some revolutionary liberal theoreticians like Destutt, Comte de Tracy, and his fellow thinkers introduced “ideology” as a branch of epistemology. A branch that was dealing with ideas, and the origin of ideas and knowledge (in fact the subtitle of Destutt’s book Elements of Ideology is for use in the central schools of the French Republic). Thus, in this sense, ideology is the discipline of the development of ideas or the origin of the ideas and sensory knowledge. In contrast to Idealism and metaphysics, these theoreticians claimed that the origin and development of ideas are more important than the ideas themselves. However, Napoleon fell out with them and called them ‘ideologues,’ namely theoreticians and people who makes doctrines. Thus, for the first time, ideology was used with a negative connotation, in the sense that ideologues are theoreticians who sit in their ivory tower and criticize the circumstances without having paid attention to pragmatic aspects and the real politics and power. Later in the survey of changes in the definition of ideology, this Napoleonic meaning was favored. The reason is that in 1845, Marx and Engels wrote a book named The German Ideology, which was not published at the time. It was published before the WWII in 1932. In this book, ideology and Idealism were considered synonymous. There Marx attacks “German Idealism,” because the left-wing Hegelians thought that the ideas are moving the history forward and one can only reform the society by criticizing the religious ideas and beliefs; however, it is the life and the lifestyles that realize ideas. Therefore, Idealism is a kind of “reverse thinking,” like in a photography dark room, where photo negatives show reality inverse. After Marx, Karl Manheim in his book called Ideology and Utopia, discussed ideology as “false consciousness” in the Marxist sense. Therefore, the first person to present a negative scientific definition of ideology is Marx. It is a paradox that the biggest and most comprehensive ideology in history is named after Marx. Thus, today we literally are talking about Marxism when we talk about ideology. After WWII, when fascist, right-wing authoritarian and left-wing communist ideologies gave rise to ideological regimes, ideology was redefined and criticized. In short, ideology has been defined differently in different eras.

Q: What is the history of the concept of ideology in Iran? A: In Iran, before Dr. Ali Shariati, the late Mr. Bazargan published two books called The First Revelation and Ideology and Islam, the Contester and Productive Being open to all the horizons of all religions and ideologies is among his characteristics, but it does not mean that he is positively eclectic or syncretic or a negative mixer of incongruous elements. If Shariati were present now, he would have remained a teacher and a researcher. He did not like running for the office, or working in the government as a minister or getting a position School. At the time, the Muslim intellectuals were trying to come up with an ideological criticism with regard to the religious tradition. Their goal was to transform religion from its superstitious, hereditary, and unconscious state –which was deterrent to social changes that could result in a better, more developed, freer and more just world- into the moral and spiritual backing of progress. It is in this critical sense that Shariati says that he has changed religion from a hereditary and unconscious superstitious tradition into an ideology. Nowadays, by religion we refer to the theist worldview, a school of thought instructing social action, and all the philosophical, ethical, and mystical meanings and bases. My point is that the concept of ideology similar to the concept of religion has constantly changed. Usually we consider positive connotations for the word religion. However, in Quran, God calls on the pagans saying that you have your religion and I have my religion. It means that paganism is a religion. Similarly, we think that imamah (religious leadership) is a positive concept; however, it is not the case and there are Imams of paganism [in Quran]. Therefore, religion is a general term with positive and negative connotations. The case of ideology in history is the same. The day I arrived in Iran, I proposed that we should start “a battle of definitions,” namely; we should not accept the predominant definitions of terms at their face value without criticism. Some think that ideology has a fixed and determined definition; however, it is absolutely not the case.

Q: What about the philosophy/ideology dichotomy then? Please talk about the relation between these two words. A: In the history of philosophy, ideological criticism is the equivalent of metaphysical criticism. Metaphysics is also an ambivalent concept. Namely, metaphysics has always been discussed throughout the history of philosophy, from Kant until now, either in analytical or phenomenological branch. Therefore, what we call ideology in sociology or politics is called metaphysics and Idealism in philosophy. Q: Some categorize philosophy as logocentric or anti-logocentric. For instance, Dr. Mohaddethi believes that Shariati’a thought was anti-logocentric and non-Idealist. What do you think? A: Essentially, western thought is logocentric or linguistic. In Derrida, logos has priority over writing. Socrates believed that one should live by philosophy. Therefore, one should express it in words. In the eastern tradition, there are people of the Book (Ahle-ketab) and Quran starts with [the words] ‘God of pen, and writing and education.’ Shariati was a scholar of comparative studies. Namely, by ideology, he is not referring to constructing a dogmatic system in which explanation manuals (risalas) are written and all questions are answered; what he does is drawing a table, where all these schools can be compared to one another. His lectures on geometrical Islamology in Hosseiynieh Ershad is such a comparative study. Inspired by the suggestion of the French epistemologist Bachelard, he draws a geometrical shape where all intellectual and religious systems are compared to each other and their characteristics are exposed.

Q: Therefore, one cannot put Dr. Shariati under a certain –ism. However, some are of the opinion that this approach risks calling him eclectic. A: That is correct. Being open to all the horizons of all religions and ideologies is among his characteristics, but it does not mean that he is positively eclectic or syncretic or a negative mixer of incongruous elements. Syncretism is the amalgamation of non-related elements, which is the bad type of eclecticism. However, the positive sense of eclecticism refers to combining congruous elements; which is a constituent of all great ideologies and religions. In Shariati’s opinion, what is meant by religion is not religious forms but the religious, spiritual, mystical or ethical human being, or the human being who is a transcendental and superior manifestation of humanity’s encounter with the divinity. Shariati uses an open and dialogic method; for instance, he teaches history of religions with an interpretive-hermeneutic approach. He states that in order to understand Buddhism, one should learn about Buddha’s personality. Again, this is a methodology; he is not trying to convert anyone into Buddhism. In other words, it is a hermeneutic approach for sympathetic interpretation and search for meaning. Overall, he was neither a Marxist, nor Buddhist, nor existentialist, nor Christian or Protestant. He criticizes Marxism, stating that Marxist ethics is more bourgeois than the bourgeois ethics. His attacks on Marxism and modernism is unparalleled to any critic in the ethical and spiritual sense. Contrary to the popular belief, he was neither against modernism, nor against the west. In contrast, he believed that east and west are two aspects of human beings. Thus, he has the same relationship with western thinkers as with the eastern scholars; he says that he loves both Abu Dhar and Charlie Chaplin. Among the characteristics that makes him attractive to the young people is that all these aspects are not paradoxical in him. That is to say, many question the compatibility of being religious and being open to other issues and realms! Although, this also leads to some misunderstanding and misconceptions. Q: Shariati has harshly attacked some philosophers as well. Why has he done this and what is his goal? A: He attacks and defends certain kinds of philosophy (and mysticism). He says, “only philosophy and mysticism satisfy my soul’s thirst.” True philosophy is questioning and the freedom of thought; when he attacks philosophers, he is attacking the theoreticians who justify power, because a requirement of philosophy is criticizing power and being independent from it. Plato’s idea of philosopher-king as evidenced by his own fate, is an illusion because being a king and being a philosopher are two separate things. Q: So must a philosopher always be outside power? A: Yes, but not in the sense that the intellectual is indifferent to power or does not participate in reform. In contrast, she or he always tries to help the better people gain power; however, an intellectual is considered a true intellectual when she or he keeps his critical distance from power –even the best kind- in order to see the deficiencies. Q: In my opinion, the philosophy/ideology dichotomy does not make any sense, because they are not parallel; philosophy is a top-down macro-process while ideology deals with actions. Therefore, it could be that comparing them is an insult to philosophy, lowering its status. I believe that philosophy can control ideology not reject it. Basically, what is the function of philosophy? A: Right, as I said ideology both had negative and neutral or scientific connotations. In the latter sense, in the modern democratic society, classes, parties and different ideologies compete with each other. A democratic society is a society in which a collection of ideologies competes and contests based on their politics and beliefs, in a free and organized way. Q: Has ideology always something to do with classes? A: A society is made of classes with distinct ideologies. In Marx’s sociology, ideology is a superstructure that consists of cognitions, rights, politics, culture, knowledge and information. In the neoliberal modern times, power is invisible; for instance, we all think that we are looking at the internet, while it is the internet that is looking at us and controlling us. That is why this kind of ideology is far more totalitarian and dangerous, because in the fascist and communist totalitarian regimes, one could see the leader and be afraid of the government is controlling everything; but in this software ideology, one can see no one. Well, if we are to talk in scientific and not argumentative terms, having an ideology, similar to the existence of classes in the society, is an inherent and natural part of all classes, so that every class has its own distinct ideology and every government has its own ideology as well. Q: Thus, can we say that concurrent competition and dialogue between ideologies is natural, but exclusive ideologies are dangerous? A: Exactly. Exclusivity is dangerous, like the implementation of inquisition in the Middle Ages. In my opinion, ideology is the sum total of all its positive and negative connotations in history, I look at it as a scientific and neutral term referring to a systems of ideas that can be positive or negative. Therefore, there is no paradox between philosophy and worldview except that they have different functions and subject matters. In the modern era, in Heidegger’s words, the world has changed into the pictures of the worldviews. Namely, imagined pictures of the world make the basis of the new ideologies. In the modern era, Idealism has turned into an ideology; new ideologies are the new religions. In Jaspers’s opinion, in a certain historical epoch, great religions emerged and now that epoch is over. In religious terms, it is called “finality [of the prophethood].” The Middle Ages in the West or Europe were entirely religious times; however, the modern era is non-religious, common or secular. Generally, the secularity of spirit rules and ideologies emerge. Sometimes ideologies play the same role that religion used to play. For instance, in our country when religious youth turned to Marxism, they were still to some extent ‘religious,’ but they believed in Marxism-Leninism. Nowadays, the reigning religion is neoliberalism, which is not the original revolutionary anti Middle Ages democratic liberalism, but a nonchalant democracy, without any firm commitment to any value or belief. Q: In the survey of the current thought movements, where does Dr. Ali Shariati stand? What role did he play in our contemporary thought? A: We had a comprehensive debate on this in Rokhdad Institute entitled “The genealogy of the contemporary thought in Iran.” Since the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, there are two “thought groups” in the country, the traditionalist and the progressive. Clergies also follow one of these two tendencies. In the middle, there are people like Sayyid Jamal in Iran and Muhammad Iqbal in India who started Islamic Modernism. There were also people like Kasravi, Sanglaji among others from other thought movements, and later Bazargan, Sahabi, Taleghani, etc. and especially in Mashhad there was Mohammad Taghi Shariati who founded “The Center for Publication of Islamic Truths.” In fact, when Shariati is talking about national and religious reforms, he is following the path and the direction of these movements from 1320s to 1350s/1940s to 1970s.

Q: From political and intellectual perspectives, to which traditions does Dr. Shariati belong? A: From a political perspective, he belongs to the national-popular movement originated during the Constitutional Revolution and continued by Dr. Mosaddegh; and from a religious perspective, he belongs to Islamic Modernism that Sayyid Jamal and Muhammad Iqbal set in motion. It is evidenced by the posters published in early years of the Islamic Revolution in which Sayyid Jamal, Iqbal and Shariati are depicted. Such depictions were not unique to Iran, it happened all over the Muslim World. Nowadays, there is a fallacy that states that since Sayyid Jamal was a proponent of revisiting the original true Islam and talked about Salaf-e-Salih (the virtuous predecessor), he belongs to the same Salafism that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now part of. The word Salaf (predecessor) has confused these people to consider opposite tendencies the same, tendencies that are not related at all. Sayyid Jamal and his associates were intellectuals supporting Islamic Modernism; in contrast, ISIS wants to return to Sharia and re-establish caliphate. The revisiting that Shariati talked about is not ‘returning.’ It is revisiting, namely, starting over, ‘a new beginning, and a different start.’ Q: As a concluding remark, in your opinion if Dr. Shariati were present in the decades after the Islamic Revolution, especially during 1390s/2010s, what could have his stand been? A: If he were present now, he would have remained a teacher and a researcher. He did not like running for the office, or working in the government as a minister or getting a position. Although he would have remained politically active and committed, he would certainly have been critical of the existing circumstances and part of the popular and national opposition and would remain a committed and independent person. He would criticize the foreign powers and domestic problems. He was not and would not be solely critical of the current circumstances in Iran, but the entire world. However, such criticism and reformism would have not been an invitation to violence, because he had drawn his line regarding violence and was against all kinds of it. Although, he is been called “the Teacher of the Revolution” and is famous for his teachings, but in fact, he rejected all kids of “premature revolutions,” as he believed that a real revolution would entail a long-term process and that changing governments would not result in epistemological, moral and ideological break that a real revolution would bring about. His though was revolutionary in its truest form, not like the current shallow and political trends of revolutionary thought. Nowadays, some are blaming the revolutionaries because of their participation in the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution. However, it is better to say that one of our problems is that the revolution is not completed yet. Our Islamic Revolution happened extremely fast; the government and the rulers changed, but it seems that there has been no revolution in culture, structures and habits. That is to say, that change is not that simple; habits formed over 2500 years cannot be reversed overnight. If Dr. Shariati were present now, he would still have had a historically pro-change and revolutionary vision.

Dr. William Alberts: “Unlike the United States, North Korea and Iran Have Not Invaded, or Bombed, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Vietnam”

BY MOHSEN ABDELMOUMEN

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Do you think that Donald Trump's statement to the United Nations General Assembly to destroy rogue states is justified? The United States, which has destroyed Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, among others, and organized permanent coups in the countries of Latin America, and who have been involved in many conflicts, are not they themselves a rogue state?

Dr. William Alberts: President Trump’s threat to “totally destroy” North Korea is not only unjustified, it reveals just how psychopathic and criminally dangerous he is.  “Totally destroy” a country of over 25 million human beings!  That is a most horrible war crime threat.  And, amazingly, he made it under the self-contradictory pretext that North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons “threatens the world with unthinkable loss of life.”  Trump is a dangerous war-criminal-in-waiting. He should be removed from office – by impeachment or Congress’s determination that he is unfit for office -- as soon as possible so that he does not hurt countless more people.

His UN speech reveals much about President Trump’s projection of his own motives on to others.  He projected on to North Korea and Iran his own aggressive motives.  He called North Korea’s leadership a “band of criminals arming itself with nuclear weapons and missiles“; and if a patient” U.S. “is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”  The very reason North Korea is developing nuclear weapons is to defend itself against more U.S. aggression.

Actually, the U.S. has had a “choice” to resolve the nuclear weapons dispute with North Korea.  Well over a year ago, in an interview with the Associated Press, North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Su Yong said his country would halt its nuclear tests if the U.S. and South Korea stopped their annual military exercises in the Korean Peninsula.

In calling Iran a “rogue nation” and the Iran nuclear deal an “embarrassment” – in the face of Iran’s compliance with the agreement -- Trump sent a message to North Korea that any nuclear weapons freeze agreement with the Trump administration would not be honored.

Calling Iran a “rogue nation” and North Korea a “band of criminals” is more evidence of Trump’s tendency to resort to projection.  Unlike the United States, North Korea and Iran have not invaded, or bombed, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Vietnam, nor used weaponized drones that violate numerous nations’ national sovereignty and kill innocent civilians, nor do they have hundreds of military bases around the world to guard and advance imperialistic ends.  In fact, North Korea and Iran are not known for invading other countries.  It is obvious which nation is rogue.

Not surprisingly at the UN, President Trump used religious language to cloak his authoritarian aggression, which Biblical language appeals to many evangelical Christians in his base.  Thus we have Trump’s pretentious statement: “If the righteous many don’t confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.”  For Trump, saying the right words makes it so.

I agree strongly with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s statement, that Trump’s address is “ignorant hate speech” and has no place in the UN.  The UN is a diplomatic body committed to resolving international disputes, not a platform for threatening to commit mass murder.

Don't you think that President George W. Bush should be judged for the crimes against humanity he committed, including his criminal military intervention against Iraq?

Yes. Bush pre-emptively invaded Iraq under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  The U.S.-led invasion and occupation killed over a million civilians, uprooted an estimated 3.5 to 5 million Iraq families, turned an estimated 2 million wives into widows and 4.5 million children into orphans, and sacrificed the lives of almost 5,000 American soldiers (killed) and over 100,000 thousand (wounded in body, mind and spirit).  Renowned political analyst Noam Chomsky has called the invasion of Iraq “the worst war crime” of this century.”  With all of the death and destruction Bush unleashed in invading Iraq, he is the worst war criminal of the 21st Century.

Tellingly, Bush committed this terrible war crime on bended knee, repeating at a press conference shortly before unnecessarily invading Iraq, “I pray for peace.  I pray for peace.” He used worshipful language to cloak warmongering.  And a high majority of white evangelical Christians bought into it, seeing the invasion of Iraq as “creating exciting new prospects” for convert Muslims to their one true faith in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and savior of the world.  Here capitalistic plunder and Christocentric evangelism are two sides of the same imperialistic coin.

Sadly, The United Methodist Church has built a monument on the campus of Southern Methodist University to this worst war criminal of the 21st Century, who is a United Methodist. The monument is called The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum.  A monument demonstrating that access to power -- and the money that goes with it -- often trumps morality.

In your opinion, are not Daesh and Al Qaeda a typical product of American imperialism and of its back rooms like the CIA?

Yes. In invading Iraq, George W. Bush said, “We have lit a fire of freedom that will one day reach the darkest corners of the world.”  Instead, Bush’s invasion created more “darkness.”  His American-led invasion overthrew Iraq’s minority Sunni rulers and replaced them with the Shiite majority, who then joined the U.S. in marginalizing and imprisoning Sunnis.  This became the breeding ground for the rise of the brutal ISIS, whose leaders emerged from that oppressive “darkness” to take revenge and expand.  As a senior Islamic State official was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “If there were no American prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS.”  Which means: if there had been no American invasion of Iraq, there would be no ISIS rising up from the ashes of Bush’s “fire of freedom.”

Muslim reality reveals that America’s foreign policy is about oppression, not spreading “freedom.”  A study by the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board refutes George W. Bush’s assertion that the horrific 9/11 attacks against America were committed by people who “hate our freedom.”  The study found: “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies,” such as America’s “one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, ever increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf States.”

Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are the product of the CIA.  In the 1980s, the CIA trained Islamic extremists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The strategy backfired, as Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network then turned their violent jihad against America’s domination of Muslim nations.  One example of that domination was the US and British-controlled UN sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that resulted in the deaths of over a half a million Iraqi children.

Are not the recent events in Charlottesville symptomatic of the American unease? Aren't the US sick of their proslavery history?

The violence in Charlottesville is symptomatic of the extent to which white supremacy remains ingrained in America, and is becoming more normalized with the election of Donald Trump as president.  One of Trump’s racist appeals as a candidate was his obsessive “Birther attempt to prove that America’s first black president was not born in the United States and therefore illegitimate and unfit to occupy The White House – and could even be a Muslim.  Another racist dog whistle was Trump declaring that he was “the law and order candidate” -- not the “justice for all” candidate.   He communicated a promise to white voters that he would keep people of color in their place, at the bottom of America’s white-controlled hierarchy of access to political, economic, legal and religious power.                               

President Trumps’ response to the Charlottesville violence reveals his own racism.  White supremacists, neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan descended on Charlottesville to protest the planned removal of the statue of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee.  They carried torches, chanted the Nazi slogan “blood and soil” and “the Jews will not replace us,” some wearing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats.  Their violent clash with counter-protesters was climaxed by a man, identified as a neo-Nazi sympathizer, ramming his car into a group of peaceful protesters, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring 19.  Trump’s response was to condemn the violence on “both sides,” which reveals which side he is on.  And he continued to reveal where his sympathies lie in lamenting that those who want to take down Confederate statues are “changing history and culture.”  Never mind that it was a history and a culture that thrived on the enslavement of black persons.

Former KKK leader David Duke, who joined the Charlottesville protest, called it “a turning point,” saying, “We’re here to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump because he said that he’s going to take our country back.”

Yes, many Americans are sick of our country’s proslavery history.  One example of their rejection of and efforts to transform that history is seen in their presence as counter-protesters in Charlottesville and elsewhere.  But many other Americans have embraced the presidential candidate who put down “political correctness” -- which are code words that have encouraged white people to normalize their white supremacist conditioning and helped him to ride their racism – and his – to The White House.

The number of murders in the black population has never been more important than under the era of the black President Obama. Is the racism a matrix in the USA?

Many pundits assumed that the election and re-election of America’s first black president marked the rise of “post-racial” America.  On the contrary, it marked the rise of intense white resentment.  Not only a black president, but a black First Lady and their two black children – in The White House.  Barack Obama’s presidency presented a grave threat to the white supremacy upon which America was founded and is maintained.  The unease caused by this racial resentment has showed up in the numerous killings of black citizens by white police officers, most of whom have been found innocent despite glaring evidence of their guilt.

Barack Obama’s election as president brought tremendous hope and empowerment to people of color and their children – and to progressive white persons.  The fact that President Trump is obsessively seeking to undue Obama’s accomplishments – like the Affordable Care Act and the nuclear agreement with Iran – is an affirmation of Obama’s presidency.

But President Obama was not that much different from George W. Bush.  He not only refused to try Bush for his war crime in illegally invading Iraq, he continued that war against Iraq until Iraqi’s leaders told the U.S. military forces to leave the country.  He continued Bush’s “global war on terrorism,” expanding Bush’s drone warfare and killing even more civilians in various countries.  But no matter how hard Obama tried to please America’s white-controlled power structure, he was no George W. Bush.    

A black man in The White House turned America’s white supremacy upside down.  Donald Trump’s successfully stoked the resulting severe racist unease with his presidential campaign, which was actually about making America white again.  It was about deporting people, building walls, creating bans, and establishing “law and order” to rid America of impure people and thus protect the country’s white-Euro Christian foundation.  He also threw into this racist and xenophobic mix the promise to evangelical Christians that he would accommodate their biblically-based prejudices against women and LGBTQ persons.  Thus, much of the support for Trump’s presidency comes from people’s racial resentment -- and biblical bias -- not economic insecurity, as certain studies show.

What is your reaction to the extermination of the Muslim minority of the Rohingyas in Burma? Why this silence of the media and other organizations of empire that are always boring us with their so-called human rights and their false democracy?  And where is this Aung San Suu Kyi to whom the empire has awarded a Nobel Prize while she is a typical product of the CIA? What do you think of all this?

If a Christian minority were being ethnically cleansed by Muslims in Burma, the atrocity would be headline news in U.S. media, and President Trump probably would be threatening to invade the country. 

In his UN speech, Vice President Mike Pence said Trump urges the UN Security Council to act quickly to end the violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims.  Trump’s quoted words sound like a commitment to this oppressed group’s human rights, but his behavior tells a different story.  He could have offered the fleeing Rohingya Muslims sanctuary In the United States.   But he already has issued executive orders banning refugees and immigrants in several Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.  His executive orders are another form of violence against refugees fleeing persecution and immigrants seeking to unite with their loved ones or pursuing careers and dreams.   The bottom line here:  Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is reported to have talked with Trump about the hundreds of thousands of Roingya Muslims entering Bangladesh, but said she was not counting on him helping because of his attitude toward refugees (See “Trump Urges ‘Strong & Swift’ UN Action to End Rohingya Crisis,” EyeWitness News, Sept. 19, 2017).

The equivocating response of Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s de facto leader, is surprising in light of her reputation as a champion of human rights and years of house arrest when the military ran the government.  Evidently the military still does.  In her UN speech, Aung San Suu Kyi called for “patience” and condemned “all human rights violators in the country” (which included Muslim resistors), and failed to address what the UN itself has called an “ethnic cleansing” campaign (See “ ’Traitor’: Rohingya react to Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech,” By Saif Khalid, Aljazeera, Sept. 20, 2017).  Her words sound similar to Trump blaming “both sides” for the white supremacist-caused violence in Charlottesville.

With Myanmar a Buddhist-majority country, one wonders about the response of Buddhist leaders to the oppression of the country’s minority Rohingya Muslims.  Some of the world’s leading Buddhists expressed their concern in a letter, reminding everyone that Buddha teaches “respect for all, regardless of class, caste, race or creed. (See “Buddhist Leaders Respond To Violence AgainstMuslims In Myanmar,” Huffington post, Dec. 10, 2012) 

In an eyewitness report, Dr. Jack Kornfield says that in Myanmar he encountered monks who are “drumming up hate,” “sowing mistrust across much of the country,”  talking about their “fear of a Muslim takeover,”  believing that “sometimes violence is needed to protect the nation,” and monks becoming “fundamentalists who espouse prejudice in the name of dharma” (“Buddhists Betray the Teachings: Jack Kornfield on the anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar,” by Jack Kornfield, Lion’s Roar, July 14, 2014).

 Such monks appear to be like the many white evangelical Christians who went to war with George W. Bush against the defenseless Muslims of Iraq, and also like so many such Christians attracted to Donald Trump’s campaign to “make American great again” – for them – by his promising to legalize their biblically-legitimized desire to discriminate against women and LGBTQ persons.

Is not the word "democracy" that capitalists use even in their imperialist wars an obsolete and biased term?

“Democracy” is a very pliable term, conveniently adaptable to cloak very opposite anti-democratic ends.  George W. Bush used democratic -- and even religious -- words to justify his administration’s invasion of defenseless Iraq, saying “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; freedom is God’s gift to every man and woman in the world.”  That horrible war crime was called, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”  It should have been called “Operation Iraqi Oil,” as Iraq’s large, nationalized, oil reserves are now controlled by Western oil companies.

Capitalistic greed is behind America’s so-called “global war on terror,” also launched by Bush. Endless war provides endless profit for the military/industrial/energy/intelligence/religious complex.  American imperialism is betrayed in the US Navy’s motto: “Around the world and around the clock.”

Sadly in America, capitalistic-controlled democracy does not promote equality, but the very opposite, seen in the ever widening economic gap between the wealthiest citizens and the vast majority of other citizens.

Democracy in America is becoming more and more obsolete because politicians are being less and less guided by the will of the majority of voters.  One example is the latest effort of Republicans to pass a health care bill that would deny medical coverage to 15 million people by next year and 22 million by 2026.  It’s less and less about the democratic process of one person one vote and more about capitalistic profit, with lobbyists for big corporations lining politicians’ pockets.  Which means that much organizing must be done by grass roots organizations that represent the welfare of the many.

In your book "Counterpunching Minister (who couldn't be "preyed" away)" which is a collection of articles written in Counterpunch, you are calling for an awakening of consciences. Can we say that you are a rebellious pastor? You have combined a research work with a very prolific writing and your mission as pastor. Do you think that in this modern world, religions can fight injustice as in the time of their revelation?

I’m very appreciative of Counterpunch, and especially its editor Jeffrey St. Clair for publishing my articles over many years, and for St. Clair’s writing the Foreword to my book.  Most of articles would not find welcome in many mainstream religious and secular publications.

There are those who believe I’m a rebellious pastor, and I’ve been called much worse.  But I’m guided by the example of the prophet who said his mission was to “preach good news to the poor and set at liberty those who are oppressed,” who taught that one of the greatest commandments was, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and who said that treating others as we would want to be treated sums up the Law and the Prophets.  I believe religion means doing what the prophets worshiped, not worshiping what the prophets did.

The prophet Jesus was very rebellious, to the point of being crucified by the Roman-controlled status quo of his day.  His example is very risky, which is why many Christians turn his model into a memory and worship it.  The stature is found in the statue.  The right is remembered in the rite.  The power is in the prayer.  Vicarious identification with prophets like Jesus can turn their risky movements into movements to be worshiped – and thus neutralized.  The movement is worshipped and thus avoided as a model for continued risk-taking on behalf of oppressed people.

My point: it is much easier for a religious leader to be a shepherd than a prophet, to see people as sheep to be tended to, rather than individuals with human rights that may be violated and need to be fought for.  The two roles are inseparable, as the well-being and rights of people are interrelated.  However, the primary role of many faith leaders is to provide individual support for people in crisis, not address also the oppressive political, economic and legal realities that cause, or contribute to, their crisis.  Here the focus is often interpersonal, not institutional.  One-on-one relationships, apart from society’s ingrained discriminatory structural realities.  It is far easier, for example, to provide spiritual support for the grieving family of a son or daughter killed in Iraq, than to also join others in confronting one’s bipartisan government’s unnecessary invasion of Iraq that needlessly put him or her in harm’s way.

A great challenge of clergy is to embrace their prophetic role of confronting political and corporate power – often including their own faith organization’s leadership – with reality and moral truth, rather than serve as chaplains of the status quo and provide the Invocations and Benedictions for those in power.

I believe that money, more than morality, often determines the extent of faith leaders’ involvement in issues of equality and war and peace.  Had the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church strongly opposed George W. Bush’s needless invasion of Iraq -- to the extent of threatening to bring him to church trial for raping a country, like bishops inappropriately have done with ministers who perform the marriages of loving same-sex couples-- many conservative Methodists would have jumped ship and joined more patriotic evangelical churches.  Instead, the Bishops’ issued a carefully worded public declaration opposing the war, and that was months after millions of Americans, including United Methodists, were engaged in anti-war protests.  The Bush Library at Southern Methodist University speaks volumes.

President Trump is another case in point.  Certain faith leaders and their congregations have admirably challenged Trump’s brutal immigration policies, plans to cut health care to millions and his legitimizing of white supremacists and their violence in Charlottesville.  Faith leaders have also confronted Trump’s pandering to those evangelical Christians eager to debase themselves for power.  But more is needed.

A narcissistic and bellicose Trump is pushing the U.S. and North Korea to the edge of nuclear war with his latest provocative tweet that North Korea’s leaders won’t “be around much longer” if its foreign minister “echoes the thoughts of Little Rocket Man.”  The foreign minister’s response was that Trump was actually declaring war and therefore North Korea has the right to shoot down US warplanes.  It is imperative that faith leaders and their congregations respond to the existential threat Trump poses to America, North Korea and the world, by publicly and forcibly condemning his behavior and demanding his removal from office.

“Rebellious pastor?”  Being a pastor to individual people is critical to me.  I stress the importance of the clergy’s related prophetic role because it is risky and therefore often avoided.  But my emphasis on the prophetic role is not meant to minimize the pastoral role in caring for individuals.  As I said, and want to stress, the pastoral and prophetic roles of clergy are inseparable.  I have sought to show their interrelationship in my book, A Hospital Chaplain at the Crossroads of Humanity, which is based on my work with patients as a hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center for over 18 years.  I’m pleased that the book is being used as a resource in the clinical pastoral training of seminarians in numerous hospital settings.

By your writings and your anti-imperialist commitment and in favor of a more just and humane world, do not you disturb your hierarchy?

First a word about religious hierarchies.  Their primary function is to keep the consciences of their clergy.  In a hierarchical denomination like The United Methodist Church, ministers get ahead going along.  One might say, they don’t rock the boat for fear their own ship won’t come in.  That is how their religious superiors climbed the denominational ladder.  Good works are encouraged and lauded, as long as they do not threaten the political, economic and legal-- and therefore denominational – status quo.             

Yes, I did disturb the hierarchy of The United Methodist Church, which led to my forced retirement from the Southern New England Conference in 1973.  In 1965, the presiding bishop appointed me to be co-minister of Boston’s Old West Church to create experimental ministries, especially a pastoral counseling service, as I had a Ph.D. in psychology and pastoral counseling from Boston University.  The Conference hierarchy got far more than it bargained for.  Along with the pastoral counseling service, Old West Church became deeply involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement, provided an on-the-street ministry when thousands of hippies flocked to the Boston Common in 1968, joined other Methodist clergy and lay members and took a leading role in addressing racism in the Conference itself, and much more.  And I wrote about Old West Church’s involvements in articles appearing in The Boston Sunday Globe Magazine. The story of my disturbing a United Methodist hierarchy is told in my Counterpunch article called, “Easter Depends on Whistleblowers.”            

Most people fall from grace.  I was pushed, and landed on my humanity with a radicalizing thump.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Who is Dr. Willam Alberts?

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D., is a former hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center, and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics, religion and pastoral care.  He wrote A Hospital Chaplain at the Crossroads of Humanity (2012), The Counterpunching Minister (who couldn't be "preyed" away) (2014).

 US Foreign Policy

MOHSEN ABDELMOUMEN

Mohsen Abdelmoumen is an independent Algerian journalist. He wrote in several Algerian newspapers such as Alger Républicain and in different sites of the alternative press.