What do you know about Iran? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 04-12-2006, 07:27 PM

http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Has anybody been there? What is it really like, versus what the media and government say it is. Is the US influencing the population to become more conservative and making them dislike us more?

I wasn't alive when the US embassy was overthrown, but the guy they had prior to it wasn't who the people wanted. Would they try and attack Iraq again if the US pulled out? Would they really use a nuclear bomb on Israel if they knew that 50 nuclear bombs would be launched at them a few minutes later?

In the book 1984, there is a never ending list of countries to go to war against. Is Iran just another country that our government wants us to fear because we know nothing about them and they are different?

ASU2003 · 04-12-2006, 07:35 PM

edit, was about a different topic.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2006, 08:09 PM

The US would not be convincing them to be more "conservative". This is a country that is very hardline and rigid in operation. Their last elections had over 1800 people stripped out of elected office or ballot because the "Overlord Council" (Clerics) thought they didn't fit the Sharian mold. From what I understand there is a very strong, young, dissident movement, very active which is nice; at the same time this a very hardline country so it is not as mainstream or strong, has zero influence, but it least it isn't what Saddam's Iraq was.

They would not "attack" Iraq persay; there is no doubt that they have agents working in Iraq. Iraqs majority population is Shiite, just like Iran, that's one of the main reasons Saddam went to war with Iran in the 80's. I would imagine if the US pulled out there would be a lebanon/Syria dynamic where Baghdad would be controlled by Tehran.

As for Nuclear strikes goes. The President Ahmadinejad is a NUTBAR, he believes himself personally is to usher in the muslim eqivilent of the Rapture/Armageddon, and is to bring death against the Zionists; beyond that he is completely delusional of reality, I don't know how many people here recall him and his speech that "enthralled" the delegates of the world when he was surrounded in blue light in a speech before the UN general assembly. This guy is a fanatic on par with terrorists, he was one of the people involved in the Embassy raid I believe, I think his convictions would make him unstable to the point where he would use Nukes. What is funny is, I've heard rumors in the media that the Ayatollah and the OVerlords have attempted to have him killed because he is too hardcore; like he is a bad poker player, the whole regime has the same agenda, but his application of it is too much for them.

Your premise about 1984 and never ending wars is nothing new, Machiavelli was big on the same concept. I don't think it is the same case, Iran is a hot button issue for a plethora of reasons when it comes to policy, not saying war is warranted or is even going to happen, but as far as policy goes, it is a possibility.

thesupermikey · 04-12-2006, 08:10 PM

iran has a large number of ethnic groups as and Shi'a is the major form of islam practiced. i also think that it is the biggest Shi'a nation, but im unsure about Saudi Arabia and the southern arab nations.

the literacy rate in Iran is above 80% and closer to 100% for its younger population and the population is well educated

traditional Persian food is my favorite 'ethnic food'

thesupermikey · 04-12-2006, 08:13 PM

the government is mostly full of crazy people. to say that Ahmadinejad was elected is also crazy. The VAST majorty of the populatin is not alowed to vote and the people who can run for office is limited

it seems that the majority of people are sick of the government but there is little they can do to get read of them. everytime things have gotten bad for the clerics they have open the doors to bring in the western stuff that people want, therefore letting off a bit of steam

The_Jazz · 04-13-2006, 05:59 AM

Note: in this thread, apparently "crazy" means "working overtly and vehemently against US interests".

Note: Ahmadinejad is not the commander-in-chief of Iranian forces. It is the Supreme Commander (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) who is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are in turn elected by the general population.

Note: There is universal sufferage in Iran, and there are no groups barred from voting, including women.

thesupermikey - please provide proof that the vast majority of the population was not allowed to vote. And remember that low voter turnout is only proof of apathy, not election fraud.

I don't like the Iranians, but this is all just misinformation. You can argue that their electoral system is a closed loop because of the review and approval of all presidential candidates by the Guardian Council, but some of the statements here are just plain old wrong. If we're going to have a conversation on Iran, can we at least get the basic facts straight.

Then again, maybe that's the point of this thread - most of what we think we "know" (as Americans) is wrong.

nezmot · 04-13-2006, 06:24 AM

It's nonsense, I know many people who do business there - the people over there are just like anyone else, anywhere else. Yes their government is a little on the conservative side (like the US), but people are generally free to live their lives, to come and go as they please, and to conduct business with foreigners as they wish which is more than the people of the US can do (e.g. it is illegal for an American to visit Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia or Sudan)

Is the US government whipping up a new enemy as per 1984? Yes, just as they have continued to do ever since 1942.

Here's a question - maybe it's worth its own thread - but since 1942, has the US NOT had an enemy against which it's been fighting against? Doesn't this strike anyone else as being a bit odd?

Pacifier · 04-13-2006, 06:42 AM

The CIA claims that 2% of the vote ballots in the 2005 election were "spoiled"
Vote turnout was 63%
A lot of votes for Mahmūd Ahmadī-Nežād came from country side, "normal" people to whom he promised to fight poverty, unemployment. He appeared as "on of them" (german Wikipedia)

The_Jazz · 04-13-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Here's a question - maybe it's worth its own thread - but since 1942, has the US NOT had an enemy against which it's been fighting against? Doesn't this strike anyone else as being a bit odd?

I think that this is a great idea for another thread, and I would certainly be a willing participant in that discussion.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-13-2006, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Note: in this thread, apparently "crazy" means "working overtly and vehemently against US interests".

Crazy as in completely delusional of reality

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Note: There is universal sufferage in Iran, and there are no groups barred from voting, including women.

thesupermikey - please provide proof that the vast majority of the population was not allowed to vote. And remember that low voter turnout is only proof of apathy, not election fraud.

I don't like the Iranians, but this is all just misinformation. You can argue that their electoral system is a closed loop because of the review and approval of all presidential candidates by the Guardian Council, but some of the statements here are just plain old wrong. If we're going to have a conversation on Iran, can we at least get the basic facts straight.

Then again, maybe that's the point of this thread - most of what we think we "know" (as Americans) is wrong.

Right...

Quote:

On June 17, 2005, Iran holds its ninth presidential election, as well as mid-term elections for the seventh parliament. As in all previous elections, candidates wishing to compete in these elections must first win approval by the powerful Guardian Council, a twelve-man body accountable only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, an unelected figure who represents the highest political authority in the country.

As a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran is obligated to allow its citizens to compete as candidates in elections without “unreasonable restrictions.” Iran’s current parliamentary and presidential election laws incorporate discriminatory criteria that restrict the participation of many candidates in the electoral process.

Furthermore, Iran’s election laws grant sweeping and arbitrary powers, known as “approbatory supervision [nizarat-e istesvabi],” to the Guardian Council. “Approbatory supervision” allows the Guardian Council to subjectively disqualify even candidates who satisfy the discriminatory criteria stated in the election laws.

The Guardian Council has consistently approved only candidates already associated with the ruling elite, known in Iranian political jargon as the “insiders” [khodi]. In all previous elections, both parliamentary and presidential, “outsiders” [gheir-khodi] who were not part of the ruling circle, were excluded from competing.1

On May 22, the Guardian Council announced that only six of the 1,014 candidates who registered for the upcoming presidential elections were qualified to be placed on the ballot. Five of these candidates, known to adhere closely to the political views of the Guardian Council, included Tehran Mayor Mohammad Ahmadinejad, former radio and television chief Ali Larijani, former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai, former police chief Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The sixth was former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karrubi. Although Karrubi has differed with the Guardian Council in recent years on some issues, he too has been an “insider” for the past twenty-six years.

These selections demonstrated that the Guardian Council’s definition of acceptable candidates is more restrictive than ever. The Council, for instance, disqualified two well-known reformists, former minister of higher education Mostafa Moin and Vice President Mohsen Mehralizadeh. On May 23, on the instructions of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the Guardian Council qualified Moin and Mehralizadeh. All candidates who hold distinctly alternative political viewpoints to those of the ruling elite, including all women candidates, remained disqualified.

The Guardian Council’s vetting process effectively renders Iranian elections into a two-stage process. During the first stage, the Guardian Council exercises unlimited and unchecked powers in appointing candidates who may be on the ballot. The second stage is the actual voting, in which the electorate’s choices are restricted to these pre-approved candidates.

Iran is a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 25 of ICCPR requires that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”2

The required qualifications stated in Iran’s election laws clearly place “unreasonable restrictions” on the ability of Iranians to be elected to political office. Article 28 of the Parliamentary Election Law of 1995 states that the candidates must have “practical belief in the Islamic faith and the sacred order [nizam-e moghadas] of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”3 It further requires them to declare their loyalty “to the progressive principle of the absolute rule of the Jurisconsult [velayat faqih motlaqeh].”4 This doctrine is developed only in Shi`a Islam, and even among Shi`a it is far from universally accepted. It advocates dominance of religious clerics in holding supreme political powers and is the rationale for the position of the Supreme Leader. Presidential candidates must demonstrate “convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country.”5 The Guardian Council arbitrarily determines what constitutes “practical belief” and “convinced belief.”

In addition, the Guardian Council has interpreted the Presidential Election Law to disqualify all female candidates who have registered in previous presidential elections.6 None of the eighty-nine women who registered their candidacy for the upcoming presidential elections were allowed to stand in the election.

Finally, the Guardian Council enjoys powers known as “approbatory supervision.” This allows Guardian Council members to disqualify even those candidates who meet the stated requirements. “Approbatory supervision” is a vaguely defined authority by which the Council can arbitrarily exclude candidates who do not hold political positions acceptable to the Council.

Iranian election laws also discriminate on the basis of religion and religious belief. Parliamentary and presidential candidates are expected to declare their loyalty to the doctrine of absolute rule of the Jurisconsult [velayat faqih motlaqeh]. Mohsen Kadivar, a Shi`a scholar and cleric, has identified nine distinct theories ofgovernment among Shi`a scholars; velayat faqih motlaqeh—absolute rule—is just one of them.7 Prominent Shi`a clerics, such as Ayatollah Sistani, do not subscribe to the theory of velayat faqih even in its most general formulation.

The exclusionary and discriminatory nature of Iran’s elections was evident during the parliamentary elections in February 2004. Then the Guardian Council disqualified 3,605 candidates representing more than forty-four percent of registered candidates nationwide. In Tehran, the Council disqualified fifty-two percent of the candidates. In an unprecedented move, the Guardian Council disqualified eighty-seven sitting parliamentary deputies.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0605/1.htm

Universal sufferage means dick when anybody who comes close to being a reformer is stripped from the ballots; Iraq had free and democratic elections, but the only candidate on the ballot was Saddam, with a yes or no box next to his name.

Asserting that Iran as a "conservative" country is like American conservatism is laughable. You are talking about a regime that has had tens of thousands dissidents executed, and more jailed. As for executions they have one of the highest rates of executions. People get upset about Gitmo detentions here in the States, while actions like that are common place amongst citizens in Iran. Sounds like good ole' America to me.

This is in no way meant to demonize the people, they are probably like your average American in so far as they want the same things in life; but get serious and don't make flagarantly false statements because of your dislike for the Administration or American policy.

The_Jazz · 04-13-2006, 10:39 AM

Wow, I want to live in your world of black and white! Do the magical fairies hand out gumdrops EVERY day where you live?

The term "crazy" has a very specific meaning. You defined it correctly, but using it to catagorize the Iranian government because you don't agree with them is naive to the extreme. "Crazy" people don't successfully conduct billions of dollars in trade a year with the rest of the world or negotiate treaties or manage to subvert other people's elections (see Hamas). I would say that the Iranian leadership is very well grounded in the reality of the political landscape of the Middle East. They certainly are doing a very good job of exterting lots of control over their neighbors. "Crazy" people would have stopped doing business with the rest of the world and attacked their neighbors at every opportunity using your own definition.

As far as the long link you posted, how does that in any way refute what I wrote? I conceed the existance of the Guardian Council and explained how it worked and agreed that it's a closed loop system. Regardless of your belief that Iranian universal sufferage doesn't mean anything, Iranians still chose from multiple candidates with differing opinions, which is more than can be said for Iraq, which by the way never met the definition for "free and democratic elections".

As for your final accusations that I made false statements, you need to point them out since I'm calling bullshit. All my statements were well researched and grounded in fact. While you're at it, why don't you point out where I made any anti-American or anti-administration comment or even hinted at one.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-13-2006, 10:43 AM

My false statements comments were levied at nezmot with his Iran-American comparisons, and the tired 1984 parallels mostly.

I called the President crazy, not the country or government as a whole.

ubertuber · 04-13-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

... but get serious and don't make flagarantly false statements because of your dislike for the Administration or American policy.

Telling people to get serious and then projecting your ideas about their motivations is bad form.

For both of you, please take a step back and convey your ideas in ways that don't involve crowding others out of the discussion. Calling bullshit, marginalizing others, and intimating that people live in fantasy worlds isn't necessary.

Willravel · 04-13-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Wow, I want to live in your world of black and white! Do the magical fairies hand out gumdrops EVERY day where you live?

Yes they do, but even the gumdrops are shades of gray....

ubertuber · 04-13-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yes they do, but even the gumdrops are shades of gray....

We're now officially dropping that tangent. Really.

Willravel · 04-13-2006, 10:59 AM

I think that there is a modern Iran that few in the west are able to see. I haven't ben able to get over there yet (vacation time is a very scarse commodity), but given the opportunity, I'd love to explore the rich culture and also the modern aspects of Iran. There simply is little to no exposure here in the US. What do we know? The only ones that do know are the ones who are interested and able to get their hands on information, which is sadly a small group.

Pacifier · 04-13-2006, 11:09 AM

A Friend of mine wanted to go to Iran this summer, but since there is a bounty on his father he is not allowed to enter Iran.

nezmot · 04-13-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

My false statements comments were levied at nezmot with his Iran-American comparisons, and the tired 1984 parallels mostly.

While I'm still interested in the 1984 parallels (something being tired doesn't make it any less right - as most conservatives will agree), much of the rest of my post was probably inappropriate - and was probably more of a knee-jerk reaction to an imagined 'tone' in earlier posts. I do think many of the Iran/American comparisons stand (dissidents/executions/ideological filtering of candidates) to a greater or lesser extent - and even if they don't they're worthy of consideration - but my intent was to try and balance things by humanising the Iranian people, not to demonise the US.

04-12-2006, 07:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What do you know about Iran? http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html Has anybody been there? What is it really like, versus what the media and government say it is. Is the US influencing the population to become more conservative and making them dislike us more? I wasn't alive when the US embassy was overthrown, but the guy they had prior to it wasn't who the people wanted. Would they try and attack Iraq again if the US pulled out? Would they really use a nuclear bomb on Israel if they knew that 50 nuclear bombs would be launched at them a few minutes later? In the book 1984, there is a never ending list of countries to go to war against. Is Iran just another country that our government wants us to fear because we know nothing about them and they are different?

04-12-2006, 08:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The US would not be convincing them to be more "conservative". This is a country that is very hardline and rigid in operation. Their last elections had over 1800 people stripped out of elected office or ballot because the "Overlord Council" (Clerics) thought they didn't fit the Sharian mold. From what I understand there is a very strong, young, dissident movement, very active which is nice; at the same time this a very hardline country so it is not as mainstream or strong, has zero influence, but it least it isn't what Saddam's Iraq was. They would not "attack" Iraq persay; there is no doubt that they have agents working in Iraq. Iraqs majority population is Shiite, just like Iran, that's one of the main reasons Saddam went to war with Iran in the 80's. I would imagine if the US pulled out there would be a lebanon/Syria dynamic where Baghdad would be controlled by Tehran. As for Nuclear strikes goes. The President Ahmadinejad is a NUTBAR, he believes himself personally is to usher in the muslim eqivilent of the Rapture/Armageddon, and is to bring death against the Zionists; beyond that he is completely delusional of reality, I don't know how many people here recall him and his speech that "enthralled" the delegates of the world when he was surrounded in blue light in a speech before the UN general assembly. This guy is a fanatic on par with terrorists, he was one of the people involved in the Embassy raid I believe, I think his convictions would make him unstable to the point where he would use Nukes. What is funny is, I've heard rumors in the media that the Ayatollah and the OVerlords have attempted to have him killed because he is too hardcore; like he is a bad poker player, the whole regime has the same agenda, but his application of it is too much for them. Your premise about 1984 and never ending wars is nothing new, Machiavelli was big on the same concept. I don't think it is the same case, Iran is a hot button issue for a plethora of reasons when it comes to policy, not saying war is warranted or is even going to happen, but as far as policy goes, it is a possibility. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2006, 08:10 PM	#4 (permalink)
thesupermikey I got blisters on me fingers!!! Location: In my stressless expectation free zone.	iran has a large number of ethnic groups as and Shi'a is the major form of islam practiced. i also think that it is the biggest Shi'a nation, but im unsure about Saudi Arabia and the southern arab nations. the literacy rate in Iran is above 80% and closer to 100% for its younger population and the population is well educated traditional Persian food is my favorite 'ethnic food' __________________ If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention! "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

04-12-2006, 08:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
thesupermikey I got blisters on me fingers!!! Location: In my stressless expectation free zone.	the government is mostly full of crazy people. to say that Ahmadinejad was elected is also crazy. The VAST majorty of the populatin is not alowed to vote and the people who can run for office is limited it seems that the majority of people are sick of the government but there is little they can do to get read of them. everytime things have gotten bad for the clerics they have open the doors to bring in the western stuff that people want, therefore letting off a bit of steam __________________ If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention! "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

04-13-2006, 05:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Note: in this thread, apparently "crazy" means "working overtly and vehemently against US interests". Note: Ahmadinejad is not the commander-in-chief of Iranian forces. It is the Supreme Commander (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) who is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are in turn elected by the general population. Note: There is universal sufferage in Iran, and there are no groups barred from voting, including women. thesupermikey - please provide proof that the vast majority of the population was not allowed to vote. And remember that low voter turnout is only proof of apathy, not election fraud. I don't like the Iranians, but this is all just misinformation. You can argue that their electoral system is a closed loop because of the review and approval of all presidential candidates by the Guardian Council, but some of the statements here are just plain old wrong. If we're going to have a conversation on Iran, can we at least get the basic facts straight. Then again, maybe that's the point of this thread - most of what we think we "know" (as Americans) is wrong. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-12-2006, 07:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	edit, was about a different topic.

04-13-2006, 06:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	It's nonsense, I know many people who do business there - the people over there are just like anyone else, anywhere else. Yes their government is a little on the conservative side (like the US), but people are generally free to live their lives, to come and go as they please, and to conduct business with foreigners as they wish which is more than the people of the US can do (e.g. it is illegal for an American to visit Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia or Sudan) Is the US government whipping up a new enemy as per 1984? Yes, just as they have continued to do ever since 1942. Here's a question - maybe it's worth its own thread - but since 1942, has the US NOT had an enemy against which it's been fighting against? Doesn't this strike anyone else as being a bit odd?

04-13-2006, 06:42 AM	#8 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	The CIA claims that 2% of the vote ballots in the 2005 election were "spoiled" Vote turnout was 63% A lot of votes for Mahmūd Ahmadī-Nežād came from country side, "normal" people to whom he promised to fight poverty, unemployment. He appeared as "on of them" (german Wikipedia) __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

04-13-2006, 10:39 AM	#11 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Wow, I want to live in your world of black and white! Do the magical fairies hand out gumdrops EVERY day where you live? The term "crazy" has a very specific meaning. You defined it correctly, but using it to catagorize the Iranian government because you don't agree with them is naive to the extreme. "Crazy" people don't successfully conduct billions of dollars in trade a year with the rest of the world or negotiate treaties or manage to subvert other people's elections (see Hamas). I would say that the Iranian leadership is very well grounded in the reality of the political landscape of the Middle East. They certainly are doing a very good job of exterting lots of control over their neighbors. "Crazy" people would have stopped doing business with the rest of the world and attacked their neighbors at every opportunity using your own definition. As far as the long link you posted, how does that in any way refute what I wrote? I conceed the existance of the Guardian Council and explained how it worked and agreed that it's a closed loop system. Regardless of your belief that Iranian universal sufferage doesn't mean anything, Iranians still chose from multiple candidates with differing opinions, which is more than can be said for Iraq, which by the way never met the definition for "free and democratic elections". As for your final accusations that I made false statements, you need to point them out since I'm calling bullshit. All my statements were well researched and grounded in fact. While you're at it, why don't you point out where I made any anti-American or anti-administration comment or even hinted at one. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-13-2006, 10:43 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	My false statements comments were levied at nezmot with his Iran-American comparisons, and the tired 1984 parallels mostly. I called the President crazy, not the country or government as a whole. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-13-2006, 10:59 AM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think that there is a modern Iran that few in the west are able to see. I haven't ben able to get over there yet (vacation time is a very scarse commodity), but given the opportunity, I'd love to explore the rich culture and also the modern aspects of Iran. There simply is little to no exposure here in the US. What do we know? The only ones that do know are the ones who are interested and able to get their hands on information, which is sadly a small group.

04-13-2006, 11:09 AM	#17 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	A Friend of mine wanted to go to Iran this summer, but since there is a bounty on his father he is not allowed to enter Iran. __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein