John F. Kenndey’s Speech on discrimnation against Catholics and Separation of State & Church

Recently Rick Santorum said that the speech below made him ” throw up”.

This historic speech is very relevant today and worth reading.

John F. Kennedy’s speeh  as a Presidential candidate

on discrimination against Catholics and separation of State & Church 

on September 12, 1968

Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

 

 

 

Discussion Meeting of February 19, 2012

The discussion meeting of Thinkers’ Forum USA, was held on February 19, 2012 at Dr. Shoeb Amin’s office at 48 New Main Street,Haverstraw, N.Y. The meeting was attended by Mr. Mehfooz Rahman, Dr R. Chowdhury, Dr. N. Elahi, Dr. I.Moeen, Dr. F. Sheikh, Mr. N. Salik, Mr. Ajaz Uddin Shah, Mr. M. Ashraf, Dr S. Amin, Mr. A. Ahmad, Mr. I.Bokhari, Mr. Z. Khizer and N. Kidwai.

The first topic of the meeting was “Holism”. Few days before the meeting, Mr. Mirza I. Ashraf has already e-mailed the article to the participants. After introduction, Mr. Mirza I. Ashraf gave his presentation, and because the topic was very complex , lot of questions were asked. Mirza Sahib graciously answered all the questions and made the discussion more interesting by telling short historic stories. Although It was felt that the speaker was interrupted too many times, nevertheless the complex discussion  was very absorbing and two hours  flew by very quickly.

After the main discussion, there was exchange of ideas about how to make the format more organized. The general consensus was to keep each presentation to last about 15-20 minutes and followed by the Q &A period of 20-25 minutes. If the topic is lengthy and complex, the presentation shall be for about 45 minutes, followed by Q&A period of about 45 minutes. The moderator shall make sure that all the participants shall have a chance to express their opinion and ask the questions.

The discussion on first topic ended at 5:30 P.M., and because of lack of time, second topic was not discussed. Informal discussions continued during the tea and snack time. The meeting ended at 6:30 P.M.

THE NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED ON SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2011 AT 3:00 P.M.

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOLISM

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOLISM

 

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” — Aristotle

What is Holism?

The concept of “whole as greater than the sum of its parts” has ancient roots. But the term “holism” (more reasonably but less often spelled ‘wholism’) as fully developed rarely appears in anyone’s conversation except somewhat narrowly in that of the philosophers or sociologists. It is a scholarly word that originated from the Greek ‘holos’, meaning ‘whole’. In its present context, as defined by General Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950), 4th Prime Minister of South Africa and a British Commonwealth military leader, statesman and philosopher conceived “holism” as “The tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution.” Smuts, arguing in the Holism and Evolution (1926) says: “This factor, called Holism in the sequel, underlies the synthetic tendency in the universe, and is the principle which makes for the origin and progress of ‘wholes’ in the universe. . . this whole-making or holistic tendency is fundamental in nature, that it has a well-marked ascertainable character, and that Evolution is nothing but the gradual development of progressive series of wholes, stretching from inorganic beginnings to the highest levels of spiritual creation.” (Smuts, page-V)

 

The holistic concept in ancient theological belief, per Heraclitus (c.535-475 BCE), was strongly reflected in the concept of Logos and Pantheism. The Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi (c. 369-286 BCE) was an exponent of the holistic philosophy of life, projecting a way of understanding that is uncommitted to a fixed system, a way that is fluid and flexible, and that maintains a pragmatic attitude towards the applicability of the “multiplicity of diverse modes” of realization among different creatures, cultures and philosophical outlooks. Philosophers and thinkers even before Socrates (c.469-399 BCE) have rationally as well as theologically speculated that wholes, both animate and inanimate, are real, while parts are abstract analytical distinctions, and that wholes are flexible patterns, not simply mechanical assemblages of self-sufficient elements. Implicit in this view is that, when individual components of a system are put together to produce a large functional unit, a holistic quality develops which is not predictable from the behavior of the components in their individual capacity.

Along genuine holistic paths, whether theistic or non-theistic and whatever they are called, there is a potential evolutionary movement in the consciousness of the human being. It is a movement from the ordinary level of being, doing, and having that most of us know in our daily lives to something more fulfilling. The ordinary level is one where exist many misunderstandings, frequent periods of frustration and stress, remittent moments of happiness and pleasure, a somewhat scattered attention, and for some an underlying sense that we are not living as fully as we might until it is too late. The holistic path—which is mystical path for a theistic and an evolutionary for a non-theistic—is intended to help us experience another level where life reveals a much deeper inner meaning, where our thoughts, feelings and actions are integrated by a clear intelligence and knowledge, and a feeling of intimacy and participation with something greater than our normal selves occurs. A theistic describes it as a level where a profound spiritual dimension appears. But Plato called it higher knowledge. Many great artists tell of mysterious creative moments. Speaking holistically, we might say that the ordinary daily level that most of us know is fragmented and partial, one where experiences are driven by one part or another, such as a strong desire, a thought, or a physical urge. The higher level is experienced as more whole, more free, where fragments of formerly disparate and conflicting physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual energies are unified by a love-wisdom of the heart and a new sense of inner unity and oneness arises. The spirit is now filled with love and emerges as an active, creative, participating force in life. One must learn to distinguish the permanent transformation to the higher level from a temporary or gradual changing.

 

Holism Today

            The modern proposition of holism stems from an old idea that existed spontaneously in the ancient cultures of the Chinese, Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, and Homeric Greeks. It viewed the human being as a compound of body and soul. With physical death, the soul was considered no longer an alert consciously living entity. In some cultures it would become a pathetic shade or ghost doomed to reside in a gloomy underworld. In other cultures it would reincarnate in another body, and for still others, on account of being no longer whole without a body, the soul would dissolve into nothingness. This theme of soul unable to function without physical body, still holding ground in the modern age, impregnated itself especially into most of the monotheistic faiths within the concept of an eschatological (religious belief of judgment and destiny) resurrection as a basic theological concern with death, destiny and day of judgment. Historically, these theological considerations, originating from Zoroastrianism, entered first into Judaism when the Jews, during their Babylonian exile, came into contact with the Zoroastrian culture. From Judaism this idea passed on to Christianity and Islam where it formed into a belief that a human being is a compound whole of body, mind and soul (or spirit), and that not one of these by itself is fully alive and whole without the other two.

 

Though the concept of holism was vividly and concisely reflected by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in his Metaphysics (1045a10) that, “The whole is more than the sum of its parts” but holism in the mystical dimension of western philosophy and sociology emerged strongly when Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) developed a holistic philosophy in a way reminiscent of Parmenides (c. 515-450 BCE). Spinoza conceived that all the visible divisions and differences in the world are in fact aspects of an invisible single substance. He speculated that there is only one substance, “God, or Nature”, as nothing finite is self-subsistent. His holistic view proposed a pantheistic religious experience which was already being reflected in the mystical thinking of many religious traditions as “spiritualism.”

After Spinoza, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1860), based on his holistic philosophy that nature consists of one timeless, rational and spiritual reality and state—reflected a mystical vision of the invisible unity underlying all visible objects. Hegel’s underlying invisible, unitive state is a quasi-mystical collectivism of an “invisible and higher reality.” The whole is identified by Hegel as the Absolute in a spiritual sense. All modern exponents of collectivism in the political and social sciences, including even Karl Marx (1818-1883), stress some higher collective reality—a unity, a whole, a group—though nearly always at the cost of minimizing the importance of the role of the part and the individual. Against individualism, they emphasize the social whole or social forces that somehow possess a character and a will which is greater than or over and above the characters and wills of the individual members summed up together. Thus, in the past hundred years, holism has tended to represent a collectivism and to sometimes be perceived as opposed to individualism.

 

In the second half of the twentieth century, the concept of holism began to inspire a broader thinking that the wholes, whether in biological organism, medicine, science, art, individual behavior, philosophy of language, cultures, etc., are much more than the sum of their parts. In the philosophy of history and social science, holism asserts that the objects of social inquiry are collectives rather than individual actions. In Gestalt psychology, it sets the focus on “Gestalt”—an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts—not on isolated or separate elements. In philosophy of biology, holism opposes mechanism and vitalism, maintaining that life consists in the dynamic system of the organism. In the realm of physics, the holistic concept is reflected in the modern quantum field theory that describes all existence as an exhortation of the underlying quantum vacuum, as though all existing entities are like ripples on a universal pond—a very modern theory yet remarkably similar to a very ancient Indian theory that likens all entities to waves forming and un-forming on the surface of a vast and deep ocean.

 

Holism and Islam

            Hundreds of years before, Spinoza (1632-1677) developed a holistic philosophy or Hegel (1770-1831) conceived a mystical vision of the unity of all things, or modern thinkers like Karl Marx (1818-1883) could propound a sociopolitical collectivism, a sophisticated and remarkable holistic development had already occurred in the Islamic world of eighth century CE when holism emerged in the mystical branch of Islamic tradition, identifying a mystic of a certain high level of consciousness as a “perfect” Qutb, or a whole human being. It is important to add here that later on the famous philosopher of the eighteenth century, Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804)—though not directly from the mystics of Islam—defined this concept of mystical unity as a “transcendental unity of perception or self-consciousness.” Muslim thinkers believed that it is human spirit or soul whose windows can open to embrace all directions in unlimited dimension and their contents.  Subsequently, more than a few renowned mystics, men and women both, appeared in the culture of Islam believing and preaching pantheism or in the modern sense holism. Pantheism maintains that everything is divine, that God and Nature are identical. The Islamic mystics expressed pantheism within their belief of wahdat al-wujud, “the Unity of Being”, a concept tinged with metaphysics and a philosophical way of putting the same simple idea. The Arabic term describes the doctrine of pantheism the easy way, that all possible views about the Ultimate Reality can be termed as ‘pantheistic’ if they are focused exclusively on the Unity of Ultimate Reality, whatever its nature may be. According to Khalifa Abdul Hakim’s views in The Metaphysics of Rumi, “Even most of the evidently atheistic doctrines can be identified with it, to justify the witty remark of Schopenhauer that ‘Pantheism is the poetry of Atheism.’ Ethical Monism like that of Fichte or Panlogism like that of Hegel, the One Substance doctrine of Spinoza with a number of others in so far as they are monistic are pantheistic.” (Hakim, 2006, p. 148)

Muslim mystics were both experiencing and unfolding a mysterious and invisible factor (called later “holism”) that is enfolded but “hidden” within the fundamental synthetic tendency of the universe. Long sought by philosophers, mystics, and scientists, this factor brings an evolutionary leap in consciousness—a process with a phenomenal result we are describing as holistically human. Whereas a study of the ordinary outer mind, thought to be conscious, highlights reason and projects the power of a human being as an individual, the study of the inner or unconscious mind reflects the importance of genuine passion and reflects the power of a relationship between human beings, an invisible bond that yearns for and brings contact, connection, harmony, and wholeness. For the mystics, the “unconscious” is innate, emotional, and sensitive, is capable of perceiving and creating brilliantly. It is the unconscious mind that wants to reach out, aspires to love, and to commune with fellow human beings, emphasizing a feature of inner or unconscious mind that the learned are as one soul; in particular, the oneness of all the monotheistic prophets that cannot be broken up into fragments. If one disbelieves in one of the prophets, one’s faith in any other prophet is fractured.

Interpretation and development of a rational, Hellenistic-style philosophy in Islam had reached its highest point in the period between al-Kindi (801-873) and Averroes or Ibn Rushd (1126-1198). Now in the twelfth century and in reaction to Neoplatonism, the renowned Islamic theologians, most prominent amongst them al-Ghazali (1058-1111) interpreted that religion cannot be reconciled with philosophy. Mystic thought and life had also experienced a long and sustained tradition from the first known ascetic in Islam, Abu Hashim (d. 767 CE) of Syria to whom the word Sufi was applied, to Sanai (c.1044-1150) and Farid-ud-din Attar (c.1120-1193) of Persia and to Mohi-ud-Din ibn Arabi (1165-1240) of Arab Spain, a contemporary of Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273). Thus Rumi, appearing at a relative high point in the development and perfection of philosophical thought and religious experience in Islam, was able to inherit an exceptional intellectual and spiritual wealth. He had the theoretical influences of Greek philosophical interpretation, Jewish and Christian religious life, and Islamic jurisprudence on the one hand and the influences of Persian and Indian traditions on the other. Rumi, an orthodox Muslim, was guided and inspired by his mentor Shams-i-Tabriz who said: “The universe exists through the whole, not parts—and the whole universe is within one human being. When he knows himself, he knows all.” (Shams-i-Tabriz, Maqalat) Thus the concept of holistic humanism evolved to embrace all human beings as one “whole humankind.”

Rumi benefiting from his predecessors and then followed by many Muslim scholars and mystics, viewed the human being as the sum of several different, but interacting, energies within one body, namely, the physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual components. These entities or systems of energy mutually interact. The potential exists for both alignment and misalignment, for right or wrong relation among these energies. In ordinary daily activity, these energies are usually pulled in different directions. But, at moments, without notice, they can align—and there is a new level of awareness and consciousness that is substantially greater than the sum of its previously separated or conflicting parts. For as long as it lasts, this wholeness brings a much greater sense of unity and oneness, an awareness of itself with a new integrity, and a new relation to its inner and outer environments. An ordinary person, living with at least some conflicting thoughts, feelings, and impulses etc., inside him or her is unable to imagine how it will be when these are reconciled or resolved, what it will be like when “the conflicting desires and voices” (within) vanish and there is a wholeness—one intention, a unity reflecting as a whole. In many, but not in all cases, when this previously unimaginable wholeness occurs the individual may be aware of a spiritual component or presence and recognize it as such. This paradigm of holism within an individual (who experiences even a flash of holism) is a clue of what may be possible for the larger whole of humankind. The universal “holistic humanism” for the species appears dependent on the same paradigm as a single human being seen as a whole and bearing a common strand of spiritual harmony, unity and love.

 

Secular Humanism and Holism

Historically, humanism in its philosophical characteristic projected by the human being’s conscious mind or reason, has been associated with two main groups. One is the 15th century “Italian humanists” who were concerned with art and literature; the other is the present-day humanists who have a secular outlook. Neither group, at least until now, has defined humanism within the context of a human being’s inner or unconscious mind which is the source of an invisible bond between the people seeking harmony, connection, and love. Rather, the key attribute of secular humanism is to project the power of an individual human being pursuing worldly status, material gains or social contribution. Though secularism has a role in theist’s realm, it is not typically secularist. His holistic outlook is neither relative nor confined to one period’s art and literature nor to the present time’s secularist view. For him the core of human beings is the mind, soul or spirit that projects empowerment and self-actualization a, that in right relation produce harmony within an individual and within humanity. The ability of the human being to think and feel in all aspects, “material” and “spiritual”—to reason and intuit, to love, hate and fear, to receive and sense through “senses” and to perceive and believe beyond matter and form—is a vital element in the holistic essence of any humanism.

 

Present day humanists pose serious questions about the validity of religious traditions. Some reject religion outright, arguing that religions are intolerant of each other and thus create, conflict, violence and war. Yet history does not support the thesis that secularists have done less harm or damage to mankind with their conflicts, wars and killings. Religion has often espoused moral behavior by and toward those within the group and have been a source of motivation to individuals to bind together into a society. The theists endorse the faith instinct, believing that it is hardwired into human nature. The prophets and sages who introduced religions are like different windows through which one light enters, but is reflected differently to accommodate a diverse humankind. The consequences depend on the capacity of the receivers, how they accept this light and/or manipulate it.

 

After the two World Wars of the twentieth century, a new dimension of humanism among philosophers, theologians, and men of sciences began to emerge as “Renaissance of Holistic Humanism.” This view emphasizes that since human beings are holistically body, mind, and spirit, their appreciation must not be based only on matter and form. This form of humanism prioritizes our common human needs and seeks both rational and spiritual ways of solving out problems as physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual beings. Though many atheists and agnostics of the twentieth century humanism give primacy to humans in contrast to an ideology or a religion, they nevertheless do profess faith in the human beings’ capacity to evolve further in the realm of reason and love, and in their ability to grow toward whatever they potentially are. For the religious people, reason and science have their limitations while the human imagination, being naturally a religious imagination, is intrinsically drawn to spiritualism—irrespective of the faith or ideology one follows. For them, the spirit is the real substance and the phenomenal world of intellectual physical properties is a collection of its attributes.

Philosophically, an understanding of Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi and Rumi’s works, allows the premise that the holistic human view of these great thinkers may have been the forerunners of modern trends towards spiritual pluralism, voluntarism, and activism. The impact of Muslim philosophers’ translations and commentaries of Greek philosophers and on Latin philosophical thought was such that Western thought between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries is inexplicable without considering the conceptual discourses of Muslim thinkers that there are different routes to the same truth. This served the modern foundation for theoretical openness, political freedom, and religious tolerance in Western thought. Muslim thinkers’ thought helped shape philosophy in the post-Kantian period of Goethe and Spinoza, and is related with the cognitions of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Bergson, Iqbal and many other thinkers of east and west. One salient aspect in especially Rumi’s work is his personal experiences in unraveling the religious problems that surround questions of free will, ego, and resurrection. His theory of emergent evolution and creative development and his emphasis on “intuition” and “love” (as opposed to barren intellectualism) converge into a supreme philosophy that an individual’s “self” is isolated, indeterminate, indistinct and featureless unless and until he can incorporate himself in the natural and social holism of humanity.

Mirza Iqbal Ashraf

February 17, 2012