Support the brave women of Iran
What they wear should be their own choice.
If you have read any of my weekly articles you’ll know they are usually written with my tongue fairly firmly in my cheek - I like to amuse as much as challenge. But I am so incensed by the news from Iran, that this week’s article is totally serious. It has been prompted by the death of Mahsa Amini - a 22 year-old taken into custody for wearing her hijab incorrectly (I understand it didn’t cover her hair ‘properly’). I have been impressed by the incredibly brave women (and men) who, as a result of Mahsa’s death, are daring to protest against the brutal and repressive regime in Iran.
It is, in my humble opinion, a regime that has no place in the modern world; no legitimacy to peddle a disgusting brand of misogynist medieval theocracy that can only be maintained through brutal repression. It demonstrates to me how absolutely wrong it is to allow a theocracy (of any religion), and particularly a regime that is so out of step with the modern world, to have power over its population.
I’m not an expert on Middle-Eastern affairs, and only know what I read online and see on the news, so please feel free to accept or reject my views on that basis, but it seems to me the sheer hypocrisy of this regime is truly mind-blowing. On the one hand it propagates a medieval theocratic world-view that subjugates the population by rejecting modern scientific thinking, while on the other it seems to use that very science to advance its own position in the world – including, of course, its attempts to build a nuclear bomb, as well as making the drone bombs currently being used in the Ukraine.
And it is this repression that these brave people are protesting against. For too long they have been subjugated by mysoginistic laws, enforced by such bodies as the Guidance Patrol or ‘morality police’, whose sole function seems to be to force women to dress according to their particular view of Islam. And the theological basis for this ‘morality’ in the Iranian theocracy? I understand it is that as men are so helplessly unable to control their sexual thoughts, then it is the women who must cover themselves up.
All of this makes me wonder what it is that makes religion so wrong as a basis for morality. After all, there are two key arguments that would potentially validate it. The first of these is moral relativism, and the second is the claim by religions to ‘own’ morality in the first place.
OK, so let me deal with relativism first. According to philosophers such as Hume and Nietzsche, there is no absolute morality – good and bad can only be related to a set of cultural norms. So no one culture can determine that the morality of another is bad – they can only say it is ‘different’. I agree that this is a valid philosophical position to hold, but I would suggest it is a wholly impractical position in the real world. Any regime that creates a cultural norm of ‘rightness’ from things that the majority of its people see as ‘wrong’ cannot succeed in the long term, as the inherent tension within the culture will inevitably result in the overthrow of the regime through revolution or war. It is no coincidence, for example, that Hitler’s ‘Thousand Year Reich’ only lasted 12 years.
Then there’s religion’s claim to ‘own’ morality. I have dealt with this in a previous article, but at risk of partly repeating myself, I believe there are three good reasons why this argument does not stand up:
Religious books such as the Bible and the Koran endorse and promote a broad range of behaviours. At one end of the spectrum there’s bad stuff like genocide, slavery, incest, rape, paedophilia and threats of eternal torture, while at the other end, there’s good stuff like brotherly love and peace. By choosing only the stuff at the ‘good’ end, theists are making a choice – and must therefore be using a higher level of morality to define that choice. I would argue that this is simply the same morality that is practised by rational secularists like myself.
Religious morality is enforced by either threats of eternal damnation or promises of eternal ‘bliss’. If these are the only reasons that people are adhering to such moral standards, then are they not simply behaving like potential ‘sinners’ on a leash?
Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, teach that everyone is born an ‘evil sinner’, and in the case of Christianity, can only be ‘saved’ by following Christ. So they create both the problem and the solution - and threaten their followers with eternal damnation if they don’t believe in it. They then force this into the impressionable minds of young children as if it is a glorious and life-affirming ‘truth’. How much psychological trauma and guilt can this cause in later life? It’s hardly a basis for claiming moral superiority. Unless, of course, you want to get all relativistic about it (in which case see point 1 above).
So, in conclusion, I offer my wholehearted support to the good people of Iran who are protesting against this theocratic and repressive regime, and hope that maybe one day their actions will result in a kinder, more tolerant, more civilised and more modern society. Indeed, I have decided to put my money where my mouth is, and have made a donation to the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s Women’s Committee, who are working to help achieve equal rights for Iranian women. If you would also like to donate, or for more information, please follow this link.
Thank you.
My ‘day job’ is as an author of historical novels. If you like the way I write, and fancy some gripping, page-turning action/adventure, then a good book to start with is The Witchfinder’s Well.
