THE PRESIDENT:
Good afternoon, everybody. There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place. This is one of those moments. This is one of those times. The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.
By stepping down, President Mubarak responded to the Egyptian people’s hunger for change. But this is not the end of Egypt’s transition. It’s a beginning. I’m sure there will be difficult days ahead, and many questions remain unanswered. But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers, and do so peacefully, constructively, and in the spirit of unity that has defined these last few weeks. For Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.
The military has served patriotically and responsibly as a caretaker to the state, and will now have to ensure a transition that is credible in the eyes of the Egyptian people. That means protecting the rights of Egypt’s citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible, and laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free. Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table. For the spirit of peaceful protest and perseverance that the Egyptian people have shown can serve as a powerful wind at the back of this change.
The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. We stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary — and asked for — to pursue a credible transition to a democracy. I’m also confident that the same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that the young people of Egypt have shown in recent days can be harnessed to create new opportunity — jobs and businesses that allow the extraordinary potential of this generation to take flight. And I know that a democratic Egypt can advance its role of responsible leadership not only in the region but around the world.
Egypt has played a pivotal role in human history for over 6,000 years. But over the last few weeks, the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace as the Egyptian people demanded their universal rights.
We saw mothers and fathers carrying their children on their shoulders to show them what true freedom might look like.
We saw a young Egyptian say, “For the first time in my life, I really count. My voice is heard. Even though I’m only one person, this is the way real democracy works.”
We saw protesters chant “Selmiyya, selmiyya” — “We are peaceful” — again and again.
We saw a military that would not fire bullets at the people they were sworn to protect.
And we saw doctors and nurses rushing into the streets to care for those who were wounded, volunteers checking protesters to ensure that they were unarmed.
We saw people of faith praying together and chanting – “Muslims, Christians, We are one.” And though we know that the strains between faiths still divide too many in this world and no single event will close that chasm immediately, these scenes remind us that we need not be defined by our differences. We can be defined by the common humanity that we share.
And above all, we saw a new generation emerge — a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days…that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever.
This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they’ve done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence — not terrorism, not mindless killing — but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.
And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can’t help but hear the echoes of history — echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice.
And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can’t help but hear the echoes of history — echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice.
As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, “There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom.” Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note.
Today belongs to the people of Egypt, and the American people are moved by these scenes in Cairo and across Egypt because of who we are as a people and the kind of world that we want our children to grow up in.
The word Tahrir means liberation. It is a word that speaks to that something in our souls that cries out for freedom. And forevermore it will remind us of the Egyptian people — of what they did, of the things that they stood for, and how they changed their country, and in doing so changed the world.
Thank you.
——-
Comment: Mubarakobama-Pinocchio continues a proud American tradition: “declare victory and leave”.
You wouldn’t actually want an Islamic theocracy like in Iran in 79 to emerge out of Egypt would you?
If US and Israel wants to stop the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power which is said and which I believe linked to British intelligence given its past members I have no problem with that.
@jack: You wouldn’t actually want an Islamic theocracy like in Iran in 79 to emerge out of Egypt would you?
Why not? I think that this would be a very logical and desirable outcome for a majority Muslim country like Egypt. Besides, Christians are officially recognized as an official religion in Iran and they live very well there. No, what I would not want to see in Egypt is either a “iPod & MTV regime” or a Wahabi regime a la KSA. But the MB seems to be a very reasonable movement and though I know little about it, the little I know tells me that they would do better than any other regime in the Middle-East except, of course, Hezbollah in Lebanon.
But just to make one thing clear: I think that an Islamic theocracy is a perfectly fine political order as long as it respects the rights of the other religious groups and as long as it is democratic. Not only that, but when I look at the political structure, the polity, of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I think that other countries would do well to emulate it. Russia, for example, could form a Orthodox Republic of Russia with a similar political structure and that would make it both democratic and respectful of other religions.
Take a look at how the government is organized in Iran – it’s a very interesting model and, I believe, a far better one than what you see in the West.
My 2cts.
Cheers!
==================
If US and Israel wants to stop the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power which is said and which I believe linked to British intelligence given its past members I have no problem with that.
==================
Wooooooow!!! Democracy in Egypt be damned if they choose whomever I happen to have suspicions about.
Sounds an awful lot like the standard NATO/Israeli definition of “democracy”. Just last night a so-called pundit was calling for American foundations to poor millions into Egypt to the cultivation of “civil society” [=westoxified petite bourgeoise class] and to fund alternatives to the MB to assure the MB gets marginalized. And now they’re talking about the old “Turkish” solution where a fake democracy is preserved by the military. ANYTHING to keep the people from having a truly free choice.
The shamelessness of the hypocrisy of the West stinks to high heaven, to say the least.
So the poster may get his wish after all, as undemocratic as that wish may be. But we’ll see what the Egyptian people have to say about about that, and how ready they are for the struggle ahead.
Peace
During the Cold War the West claimed to stand for democracy, except for communism as events in Latin America demonstrated. Now it supports democracy except for Islamists. Translation elect who you like as long as they don’t threaten Western strategic or business interests. And to our utter surprise we get terrorism. Is it any wonder?
Saker, I am curious: why this love affair with theocracies on your part? Please elaborate on the deep attraction they hold for you. What wonderful ingredient do they add to our collective lives that is otherwise missing? You desire a theocracy in Florida too? Or would Floridians be “the wrong kind” of theocrats? (hypocricy alert?!)
P.S. the fact that you refer to Hezbollah as “a regime” really shows how badly you need some first-hand exposure to these people. Believe me, your dream will turn to dust very quickly, sort of like Dracula does when he gets hit by sunlight.
Finally: life for Christians in Iran is great? The fact is that things aren’t as bad for them as in Saudi Arabia or in Afghanistan, but conversion is punishable by death.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
That is the point of Islamic theocracy like Iran is that is that they are not democratic and the Muslim Brotherhood with their historic links to terrorism would not result in a democratic state.
Islamic parties where about to seize power in Algeria but when the military intervened they showed there true colours.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have been a mess since 79 who have spread their chaos to Russia, China and Central Asia.
To be honest most Iranians probably hate the government in power which gets most of its support from the rural poor and the Islamic theocratic laws and government that rule the country probably hinder its development and potential.
@Anonymous
Islamic theocratic regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc tend to support and extend the violent revolutionary concept beyond its borders just like early Marxist states did.
Remember during the 70’s Israel and western countries covertly backed Islamic groups as counter to Arab nationalist states aligned with the USSR including Palestinians groups and the Muslim brotherhood which has continued into the post Soviet era in the Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia, China, Afghanistan, etc.
As Sibel Edmonds revealed and confirmed by the former Turkish Intelligence Chief Osman Nuri Gundes memoir that the US actively supports the spread of radical Islam in Central Asia.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/01/11/additional-omitted-points-in-cia-gulen-coverage-a-note-from-%e2%80%98the-insider%e2%80%99/#more-2896
@Guthman: why this love affair with theocracies on your part?
You know, I almost began answering your ‘question’ before I realized that it is really a rhetorical question, the kind lawyers ask when they want to ridicule or accuse somebody (‘hypocrisy alert’). So let’s cut to the chase, ok? Just consider me a deluded hypocritical ignoramus (about Hezbollah especially).
@Jack: Islamic parties where about to seize power in Algeria but when the military intervened they showed there true colours.
Wow – this just got to be the most intellectually dishonest statement I have heard in a long long while. Jack – is your real name “Barak Obama”?
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Wow – this just got to be the most intellectually dishonest statement I have heard in a long long while.
How?
It is true the Islamic parties were about to be elected to power before the military intervened and the result was a guerrilla insurgency and civilian bombings and massacre of civilians.
These Algerian assholes were involved in Bosnia and Chechnya who recruit and raise funds in France and Britain.
Jack – is your real name “Barak Obama”?
Obama’s staff including the late Richard Holbrooke have a history of having a pro-Islamic foreign policy except in regards to Israel especially his senior foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brezinski.
@Jack: How?
The Islamists in Algeria got elected fair and square and its the Algerian secular military who acted like Fascists.
Also, most of the terror in Algeria was flase flag by the state. that is not a secret anymore. look it up
These Algerian assholes were involved in Bosnia and Chechnya
You are putting all Islamists in the same group (again!). The fact that SOME Algerian Wahabis were, indeed, involved in Chechnia and Bosnia does not mean that the ALgerian Islamists as such were.
There were SOME UNA-UNSO Ukies in Georgia in 2008, but that harldy means that “these Ukrainian assholes” fought for Saakashvili.
Don’t you see how totally illogical your stubborn refusal to discriminate between anything or anybody with the “Islamist” label (in your head) is?
Ok guilty as charged. Snarkiness is to me what custom jewelry is to Lindsey Lohan: irrestible. But that aside, my point is not insincere: I think you are confusing corruption/lack thereof on the one hand and faith/ideology on the other. Hezbollah and Iran have been uncorruptible politically by the US/Israel and friends. Their theocratic faith has something to do with that. But that doesn’t validate theocracy. It merely validates incorruptibility. The French Stalinists were not corruptible by the Nazis and their Petainist allies. That doesn’t validate Stalinism though. Proponents of today’s capitalism usually act as though this system isn’t corrupt. I would argue that capitalism today is in many ways very corrupt, but that this fact in itself doesn’t invalidate the capitalism as an economic system. You get my point? I can understand why a French anti-Nazi resistance member during World War II who has never been to the USSR would start idealizing Stalinism: It gives him a positive mindset, which helps him fight, which is good in a way. But unless he is really a Stalinist beyond all idealization, he is setting himself up for a rude awakening once the war is over. Hence my question: are you really, beyond idealization and beyond corruption issues, a proponent of theocracy? If, as you seem to argue, that is a desirable outcome for Egypt, is it then not a desirable outcome for Florida, a majority Christian state? I am snarky yes, but this is not an inherently snarky question.
I don’t know if this has been post on Alex Jones or other sites but I found an interesting CNS news segment concerning the first WTC bombing in 93.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Also, most of the terror in Algeria was flase flag by the state. that is not a secret anymore. look it up
I have heard the bombings in France were conducted by Algerian intelligence but not heard anything about Algeria itself.
“You are putting all Islamists in the same group (again!). The fact that SOME Algerian Wahabis were, indeed, involved in Chechnia and Bosnia does not mean that the ALgerian Islamists as such were.”
It is the international branch of these organisations fighting in Algeria who also provide funds by Algerian immigrant community.
“There were SOME UNA-UNSO Ukies in Georgia in 2008, but that harldy means that “these Ukrainian assholes” fought for Saakashvili.”
They also fought in Chechnya, Croatia and causing trouble in Belarus and yes they are assholes to.
As Cyrus at Iran affairs says, when people ask about Egypt becoming “just like Iran,” they really aren’t talking about women in Hijab. They couldn’t care less abou that. What they mean is “is Egypt actually going to conduct policies in accordance with its on interests and the wishes of its public, rather than the way the US/Israel want?”
In that sense, yes. Egypt will be looking a lot more like Iran than it did before.
As far as the west is concerned, Egyptians can be as Islamic as they want as long as they keep Gaza starving. In other words, they would be perfectly happy with an Egypt “Just like Saudi Arabia.”
For a clue, take a look at Turkey. Over the last decade it has made enormous strides in true democracy and economic progress. But because it isn’t quite the Zionist cheerleader it once was, it is now becoming “just like Iran.”
@jack: yes they are assholes too
Some of them definitely are, no doubt here;-)
=============
Islamic theocratic regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc tend to support and extend the violent revolutionary concept beyond its borders just like early Marxist states did.
=============
Neither Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy) nor Pakistan (secular republic) are theocracies. Saudi Arabia is not revolutionary, but rather reactionary — in the worst sense of that term. Of course it uses extremists for its own ends, mostly to put a monkey wrench in the way of the growth of authentic Islamic awareness in other Muslim societies. Pakistan has no revolutionary concept at all to export.
Liberal capitalist democracy has arguably killed more people “beyond its borders” in the pursuit of both preserving its own system and imposing some version of it on others than anyone else.
Peace
@Guthman: Ok. Let me try to give you an honest answer, though this is a very complex issue.
One could easily write a Ph.D thesis on this topic, but I want to give you an answer from “my guts”, to try to explain to you where I come from, personally, and how I came to my seemingly bizarre views.
First, I am not a Muslim. I am a very traditionalist Orthodox Christian. From a stricly Orthodox dogmatic point of view, Muslims are heretics. I don’t mean that as an insult, but as a statement of fact. The teachings of Islam about Christ are fundamentally wrong. They see Christ as a prophet, we see him as a theanthropos a “God-man” consubstantial with the other Persons of the Tri-une Trinity. Muslims see us as polytheists whose claim to monotheism is, at best, mistaken. I don’t want to make this a long discussion on dogmatics, but I want you to understand that when I speak positively of Islam I am not, definitely not, “preaching for my parish”.
Second, I do not admire Hezbollah for being incorruptible. Yes, my very very first in Hezbollah came from a friend of mine who spent time in South Lebanon and who told me “the only truly honest men in Lebanon are Nasrallah and Hezbollah”. That is what piqued by interest, but after studing them for over a decade (and I think that I know more about them than most people) I came to the conclusion that not only is Shia Islam the branch of Islam I admire the most, but the one represented by Hezbollah, whose spiritual leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the most “advanced” or “refined” school of Islamic thought. Furthermore, I consider Hassan Nasrallah as most definitely the most intelligent and wise man in the Middle-East, if not of the world. To really see that, you have to read many of his speeches, you have to immerse yourself in his thought. He is a complex and subtle individual who can only be understood after a prolonged study. Countary to what some seem to think, I am not at all an unconditional admirer of Iran or, even less so, Ahmedinejad. But Nasrallah yes, I admire him deeply,
Third, being a religious person, I do beleive that faith and piety make a HUGE difference. There is a religious ethos in Hezbollah which is quite unique and which I deeply admire. Look up the sentence “every day is Ashura, every place is Kerbala”. Really, reseach it. And ask yourself what an entire generation steeped in this ethos is like. Oppose that to US Marines listeing to Deaf Leppard on their iPods and who spend roughly 90% of their time thinking about sex and booze, and you will get a feeling for why Hezbollah will defeat the Empire. I might offend many, but here is what I believe: secularism is not only utterly sterile, it is dead and absolutely unable of creation. God is the ONLY “real reality” – “agnostics” and atheists are just confused “existential cowards” who are unable to accept the fact that they live in a creation created by a Creator.
To be continued…
continued:
Fourth – I am not at all a proponent of “theocracy”. I do deeply believe in “people power”. However, “democracy” as preached by the West is really oligarchy, plutoracy or Imperial Fascism. Furthermore, on a moral level, pure democracy is “morally open ended”. As Dostoevsky wrote – “if God does not exist, all is allowed”. The Islamic Republic of Iran (whose political structure is closely copied by Hezbollah) is democratic in the sense that the people have a huge power, but that power is limited by the ethics and moral theology of Shia Islam. Again, Shia Islam is not my religion, but the fundamental idea to have the excesses of absolute democratic rule constrained by a system of ethics/morals is, I sincerely believe, absolutely sound. Realize this: in a ‘pure’ democracy if 51% of the voters decided that it is more sensible to euthanize all folks over, say, 65 years in order to preserve the fiscal balance of the state this would be inherently possible. In a democracy constrained by a religious code of ethics/morals this is not possible (unless the dominant religion accepets this which, in this case, neither Islam nor Christianity would). I am not advocating “theocracy” in the Papist sense of the word. I am saying that the rule of men must be constraint by the rule of God. Muslims have a belief about God which is discinct from mine. So let them constrain the rule of man in their country according to their beliefs, and I shall be free to do so in my country. “Live and let live” is not a bad idea, don’t you think?
Fifth. Florida was originally inhabited by paleo-Indian and Indian tribes. All of them were massacred by Europeans. Florida was then ruled by Spain, Great Britain, Spain again, and then the USA. Florida joined the USA in 1845. Now it is inhabited by a mix of local rednecks, hispanics and Jewish retirees from New York. Bottom line – modern Florida has not much of a history, and no culture besides Jimmy Buffet. To speak of a Floridian theocracy is absurd. But Iran has a roughly a 5’000 years of history and has been Muslim since the 7th century. Iranian Muslims, quite aware that he hisory of their nation is a lot older than Islam, have given the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism an offial status under the Iranian Constitution. Ok, Zoroastrians have been discriminated against in Iran (as are Christians and others), but at least their existance is fully accepted by the state. Bottom line: you cannot compare a culturally-dead place like Florida (which I still love) and a 5’000+ year old civilization like Iran.
Sixth. You might wonder what an Orthodox Christian like myself thinks of Islamic views on food, alcohol, the hijab or Sharia rule. Let me tell you, I like salami. I like good wine which I consider to be more than a drink, its an entire culture, a jewel of history. I kind of like the hijab. Orthodox women wear something looking like the hijab in your churches. I don’t like some aspects of Sharia rule such as the discrimination against non-Muslims in court or the death penality. But, Guthman, Iran or any other majority Muslim country is ‘their’ country, not mine. My ideal of a truly ideal society is Russian under Ivan III or Byzantium in its best years, not Islam. But what right do I have to impose my views on Iranians. Would I be happy if all Iranians became Orthodox Christians overnight? Well, if they did that uncohersed, out of a deep sense of belief – sure! But that is not the case, so I GLADLY accept their right to have their own beliefs. And if I do not AGREE with all of their beliefs, I respect their sincerity and piety and their desire to live by these beliefs. There are MANY Islamic beliefs which I don’t share. For example, they call US “people of the book” and yet they also are taught that our books have been corrupted. There is not a SINGLE WORD about Mohammed in the Bible, so I would see why they would claim that the Bible has been corrputed, and the teachings of Christ are in DIRECT contradiction to Muslims beliefs, so I do see what they would have to claim that the ‘true’ history of Christ has been distored by Christians and restored to its real narrative by Mohammed. I think that this narrative is preposterous, but I also believe that this is something each Muslim should decide for himself/herself. If they want to believe that God let the true message of Abraham, Moses or Christ be corrupted and then be re-corrrected by Mohammed – its their right. I for sure am not going to impose my religious views on anybody, including pious and sincere Muslims.
Seventh. I am a proponent of theocracy. Not quite. First, I am a proponent of the right of each nation to decide how it wants to live. If, say, the State of Florida wants to live according to a secular philosophy – fine. If it decide to live according to a Southern-Bapistm Bible-thumping philosophy – fine too. To each his own. I find Wahabi Islam paricularly abhorent and obscene. But if the Saudis really like it – let them live by it. If they want to impose it upen the Caucasus – then I hope the FSB/GRU kills every one of them, down to the last one!
Eighth. Iran is not a “theocracy”. It is an *Islamic Republic* which happens to be very democratic, much more so that most countries in the West. I – as a traditionalist Orthodox Christian – do not feel threatend by it. We – Orthodox Christians – have lived for centuries next to Shia Muslims. While there have been mistake and excesses committed by BOTH SIDES in the past, I do not feel threatened by Shia Islam. Our clergy has easy and unempeaded access to West Beirut while “Westerners” were kidnapped by the Islamic Jihad. We do NOT feel any threat from the Shia. Yes, the Wahabi are a real threat to us and to any other non-Wahabi out there, including non-Wahabi Muslims. But this is not a “Islamic theocracy” problem. This is a *Wahabi* problem. And yes, the Wahabi ideology is a sick, demented, and toxic one – be in Chechnia, Bosnia or Bamyan. I recently wrote a post about my views of the conflict in Chechnia and the ONLY Muslim who commented about it was Lysander – all the others remained silent. And I knew that a lot of my blog’s readers where Muslims, and I knew that my post would upset them. But my blog is about being sincere, about the truth, as I see it.
I am still feeling sick and tired. I am going to post this reply of mine “as is”, without correcting it. As “material for an honest discussion”, ok? Read what I have to say, and let’s continue the discussion in an honest and non-ideological manner. I do want to discuss these issues with all of you, but I don’t want this to turn into a superficial pissing-contest of slogans and cliches.
I am feeling rather sick, so excuse my poor writing and bad logical flow. I hope to get over my flu soon. Please consider the above as only a BASIS FOR DISCUSSION, ok?
Cheers,
The Saker
@All: I wrote my reply to Guthman while feeling sick and exhausted. I ask for your indulgence for all the typos. For example, when I wrote “Orthodox women wear something looking like the hijab in your churches” I meant “Orthodox women wear something looking like the hijab in *our* churches”!
I am exhausted and doing my best to answer complex questions while being sick – I ask for your indulgence and understanding.
@Guthman:
============
Hence my question: are you really, beyond idealization and beyond corruption issues, a proponent of theocracy? If, as you seem to argue, that is a desirable outcome for Egypt, is it then not a desirable outcome for Florida, a majority Christian state?
============
Iran is what you might call a a case of theocratic republicanism, just as the US is a case of liberal capitalist republicanism. [‘Democracy’ is really little more than a slogan used for demagoguery, as Plato recognized over two thousand years ago. People everywhere — good-intentioned and bad-intentioned — use the term to different ends.]
Theocracy would be good in Florida if there were
1) a homogeneous traditionally independent society with a long history of living or yearning for life that accords with a divinely-based socio-economic system.
2) critical to overwhelming mass enthusiasm for such a system (the Iranian people overwhelmingly voted for an Islamic Republic with Khomeini as leader).
3) Institutions to keep the following three forces in check:
i) fanaticism (eg al-Qaedah/Wahhabism);
ii) plutocracy or institutional concentration of wealth into the hands of a few (American Christian corporatism);
iii) tyranny
So, for example, let minority religious communities live according to their own socio-economic rules within their communities.
Otherwise Muslims, Christians, or Jews should feel free to establish a theocratic republic within their communities.
If Florida can fulfill these criteria, than all the more power to them!
Peace
Saker, Anonymous: I fully agree with you. From my South American experience, I have to say that this region had two similar experiences in different times: first, in the 17th-18th century, the Jesuitic missions, which were called (in a very good book I have about them) “Communist Christian republics”. And later, since the 1960’s, Liberation Theology which (though unfortunately stained with Marxist influences) also had very interesting proposals for a economical and political liberation through religious values. But while the Missions were destroyed militarily by the Portuguese and Spanish (which saw in them, very rightfully, a threat to colonialism), Liberation Theology suffered from a persecution from the Vatican since the 80’s, and from its own mistakes (mainly allying with atheistic leftist groups).
“But what right do I have to impose my views on Iranians.”
I’m sorry to say this, Saker, but you do this almost every day. Because it falls in line with your political agenda, you choose the rantings of Hassan Nasrallah, a Lebanese Arab thousands of miles away, over the actions of the Iranian people, who have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not want the current regime in power.
Iran is blocking websites and shutting down phones as we speak, since their people are getting more eager for the rights that Ahmadinejad called for Egyptians to have. When I make phone calls to Iran, I CANNOT talk about politics or even mention the names of Iran’s “leaders”, as those on the other end of the line risk being overheard by the security apparatus. I can give you many reasons why Iran is not a democracy, but it is this horrible situation that makes people who promote the “Islamic Republic” as a democracy offend me the most.
Anon of 20:02 and 20:55: Are you the same Anon who offered his prayers for Egypt in an earlier thread? If so, please keep praying! You apparently have a good connection with the almighty and Egypt can use all the help it can get :-)
As for me, a nonreligious Suni Muslim, here is what has turned me off from religion: The unshakable belief of many adherents of one religion that adherents of other religions will all go to hell, no matter how kindly and generously they live their lives. I hear this from Muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, etc.
It always seemed horribly unfair since most people remain in the religion that they are born in.
Also, the concept of eternal punishment in Hellfire seems abhorrent. Yes there are some people evil enough to warrant that I suppose. But I’ve never met them personally. And yet, according to religious doctrine, either I or most of the people I know, or perhaps all of us, are doomed to eternal damnation.
There are some religious people who try to work around that. But so many others who would not be happy knowing of their own salvation. No. They want to be sure their neighbors are going to hell.
@C.H.: what is clear is that our narratives about Iran are based on our mutually exclusive understandings of what happened in the latest election. You believe that “the Mullahs” “stole” the election, I believe that Mousavi & Co. could not accept the fact that a majority of Iranians did not want to vote for him(/them).
One problem for your narrative: there is excatly ZERO evidence that the election was stolen. ZERO.
So, based on that fact, let me tell you what I conclude.
You, C.H. are fundamentally arrogant and imperialist in your approach to Iran. You are just a fanboy for a specific, real, but *minority* class in Iran who shares your ideology. Instead of having the intellectual honesty to admit that you chose to defend of the interest of an Iranian MINORITY, you choose to act in a typically Fascist way, denying the “politically mistaken” majority the right to disagree with you and your friends. Fundamentally, you deny a MAJORITY of Iranians the right to disagree with you.
Your “side” lost. And that is your problem. That is what you don’t want to accept. So you blame the “Mullhas” and their eavesdropping on your phone calls (nevermind that the NSA eavesdrops on yours).
As for your description of Hassan Nasrallah as ‘ranting Lebanese Arab’ – it just goes to show the parochial, if not racist, attitude of a non-Persian and non-Arab and non-Middle-Eastern taking upon himself to hand out right and ‘non-rights’ to people in the Middle-East to speak about Iran.
Let me tell you this: who the f*ck are you to judge Iran just because you have friends in Iran who share you views and how are not happy about their society?
Yes, there is definitely a segment Iranian society which agrees with you. It is a minority, and its sed by the likes of Rafsanjani, but it is still a MINORITY. You refuse to accept that, and that is pathetic. Worse, it is also a fundamentally non-democratic. It is arrogant and imperial in its core.
You are welcome to keep up your anti-Iranian propaganda campaign, but please don’t expect me to take you seriously. I have seen what your likes have done to the Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon and plenty of other nations. With ‘friends’ like you, who needs enemies?
Your heroes (Mousavi) have already moved to the trash heaps of history. Now Mubarak has joined them. Saakashvili is still holding out, while Tymoshenko is soon to join them. You will forgive me for consider you already gone :-)
@Anonymous: here is what has turned me off from religion: The unshakable belief of many adherents of one religion that adherents of other religions will all go to hell, no matter how kindly and generously they live their lives.
If you are already sure that this is what ‘religions’ teach- then carry on! But if you still can doubt, then I recommend you set your certitudes aside and actually research what religions actually teach (as opposed to what people believe religions teach). I cannot speak for Islam, but I can already tell you that your understanding of Christian soteriology is *very deeply* mistaken.
My 2cts.
Saker, that was me (Lysander) at 22:35.
I haven’t studied religions too much in depth. I’ll look into it some more.
“Christians are officially recognized as an official religion in Iran and they live very well there.”
According to my Zoastrian friend whos family was murdered by fundamentalists it aint all sunshine.
I’m surprised you can’t cut through the smoke and see that a global caliphate is desired by Israel. These guys are itching for the Gog and Magog show down and when would be a better time than in the next two decades.
@Lysander: you? I would not have guessed. Yes, do look into the reality of what religions REALLY teach (as opposed to what some putatively religious people say their religions say). Somebody with your sharp intelligence will soon see that what some religious crackpots say is not AT ALL what religious REALLY teach.
I can help you with Christian teachings. If you want to hear the Muslim teachings, then you need to ask some of the knowledgeable Muslims posting here (Ishamid,Ayaz, Mari and many others).
Let us know if we can help.
“One problem for your narrative: there is excatly ZERO evidence that the election was stolen. ZERO.”
There is plenty of evidence the election was stolen, particularly the regime’s behavior. A democratic society does not need to shut down the internet, ban opposition rallies, carry out mass executions, invoke God, savagely beat and shoot people, or dominate the media with propaganda — **especially ** one that enjoys two-thirds of popular support from its citizens. Do you deny any of the above-mentioned took place or is currently taking place in Iran? What “evidence” is there that the election was not stolen? All you have are the statements by regime officials announcing the numbers. Journalism and reporting are dead in Iran — independent media is pretty much non-existent. Across the region, there is “zero” evidence that Mubarak and Bashar Assad stole their most recent elections, largely because of the convenience of barring all media and independent observers from assessing the vote, but that doesn’t mean that the final numbers were not utter bullsh*t. The real fundamental difference between you and I is that you trust officials from a theocratic police state when they read the results while mopping up the blood of the people who tried to protest it, I do not.
“Fundamentally, you deny a MAJORITY of Iranians the right to disagree with you.”
If you supported the bloody Pasdaran crackdown that followed the election and Khamenei’s heavy-handed internet restriction it is YOU who denies the Iranian people their right to disagree with you. I have never called for anyone to be restricted with their rights…if Iran’s military had behaved like Egypt’s and allowed the protesters to gather in 2009, Ahmadinejad and probably even Khamenei would have been shown the door. Do you believe Iranians have a right to protest like Egyptians do? If so, how can you condemn Egypt’s crackdown but not Iran’s? Foreign media was allowed to film the events 24/7 in Cairo, while it was completely banned in Iran. Egypt’s military said it “respected the will of the people” while the Revolutionary Guards in Iran delcared the protesters “enemies of God”. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can be so enraged about the Egyptian government while praising the Iranian one, unless its all about your hatred of Israel and the country you are currently residing in, America.
“Your “side” lost. And that is your problem. That is what you don’t want to accept.”
Damn right I won’t accept it. I’ll say it again…if the Iranian security forces had sided with the people, as we saw in Egypt, the regime would be history. My side “lost” because Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have, at least for the time being, a supply of dedicated, rabbid Basiji who are ready to do whatever God and Khamenei tell them, even if it means shooting innocent people and leaving them to bleed out on the streets.
“So you blame the “Mullhas” and their eavesdropping on your phone calls (nevermind that the NSA eavesdrops on yours).”
Yes, but mostly I blame the hangings, stonings, rape, and acts of torture that make Iranians afraid to use the phone in the first place.
“One problem for your narrative: there is excatly ZERO evidence that the election was stolen. ZERO.”
There is plenty of evidence the election was stolen, particularly the regime’s behavior. A democratic society does not need to shut down the internet, ban opposition rallies, carry out mass executions, invoke God, savagely beat and shoot people, or dominate the media with propaganda — **especially ** one that enjoys two-thirds of popular support from its citizens. Do you deny any of the above-mentioned took place or is currently taking place in Iran? What “evidence” is there that the election was not stolen? All you have are the statements by regime officials announcing the numbers. Journalism and reporting are dead in Iran — independent media is pretty much non-existent. Across the region, there is “zero” evidence that Mubarak and Bashar Assad stole their most recent elections, largely because of the convenience of barring all media and independent observers from assessing the vote, but that doesn’t mean that the final numbers were not utter bullsh*t. The real fundamental difference between you and I is that you trust officials from a theocratic police state when they read the results while mopping up the blood of the people who tried to protest it, I do not.
“Fundamentally, you deny a MAJORITY of Iranians the right to disagree with you.”
If you supported the bloody Pasdaran crackdown that followed the election and Khamenei’s heavy-handed internet restriction it is YOU who denies the Iranian people their right to disagree with you. I have never called for anyone to be restricted with their rights…if Iran’s military had behaved like Egypt’s and allowed the protesters to gather in 2009, Ahmadinejad and probably even Khamenei would have been shown the door. Do you believe Iranians have a right to protest like Egyptians do? If so, how can you condemn Egypt’s crackdown but not Iran’s? Foreign media was allowed to film the events 24/7 in Cairo, while it was completely banned in Iran. Egypt’s military said it “respected the will of the people” while the Revolutionary Guards in Iran delcared the protesters “enemies of God”. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can be so enraged about the Egyptian government while praising the Iranian one, unless its all about your hatred of Israel and the country you are currently residing in, America.
“Your “side” lost. And that is your problem. That is what you don’t want to accept.”
Damn right I won’t accept it. I’ll say it again…if the Iranian security forces had sided with the people, as we saw in Egypt, the regime would be history. My side “lost” because Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have, at least for the time being, a supply of dedicated, rabbid Basiji who are ready to do whatever God and Khamenei tell them, even if it means shooting innocent people and leaving them to bleed out on the streets.
“So you blame the “Mullhas” and their eavesdropping on your phone calls (nevermind that the NSA eavesdrops on yours).”
Yes, but mostly I blame the hangings, stonings, rape, and acts of torture that make Iranians afraid to use the phone in the first place.
“who the f*ck are you to judge Iran just because you have friends in Iran who share you views and how are not happy about their society?”
Because I experienced their hardship on a personal level, and I feel that I have an obligation — as someone who has unrestricted access to internet and media– to try and help those who are suffering in Iran.
“It is a minority, and its sed by the likes of Rafsanjani, but it is still a MINORITY.”
Did you see Raffers at the government rally on 22 Bahman the other day? :O Something tells me he wouldn’t welcome me to Iran anymore than Khamenei would.
“Worse, it is also a fundamentally non-democratic.”
The regime that you support shut down the internet, banned rallies, and shot people in the streets because they wanted their voices to be heard…and you have the audacity to call me undemocratic?
@ Carlo:
=========================
And later, since the 1960’s, Liberation Theology which (though unfortunately stained with Marxist influences)
=========================
I once taught a course on Liberation Lheology. In my view, the work of Islamic liberation theologians (so to speak) would be useful for a dialog between Muslim and Christian LT. Because the Prophet of Islam had the opportunity to implement the divine principles for socio-economic justice that Jesus preached about, Islamic liberation theology did not need to turn to Marxism — as the South American brothers had to do — for a practical framework for socio-economic justice.
This is a looong discussion.
Peace
====================
The unshakable belief of many adherents of one religion that adherents of other religions will all go to hell, no matter how kindly and generously they live their lives.
====================
That is certainly NOT what Islam teaches. This is my area of research, I’ve written books on the topic, and the Qur’an is quite clear on the matter.
But many secular ideologies are exclusivist. Communists may not believe in Hell, but they treat their ideological enemies as if they do believe in Hell.
Liberal Capitalists may be Godless, but they treat anyone who does not accept their physical and intellectual domination as sub-human.
The religion-ideology distinction is a fiction and a myth, when one gets right down to it.
Peace
Reading C.H.’s comment made me remember of an article by the War Nerd that he wrote at the time of the Iranian elections. I don’t agree with the War Nerd on this issue, but his atitude surely was much more correct than C.H.’s:
“It’s good discipline for a war nerd, facing depressing fact like that, reminding yourself that these people, whoever you’re looking at, don’t want what you want, don’t think like you do. Me, I thought the Shah was pretty cool, with those F-14s and trying to revive the great days of the real Persians, before Islam dulled them down. (…)
The point is, the Iranians disagreed with me: they kicked the Shah’s ass out, set him adrift with his cancer and picked Khomeini, who to us looks like Dracula’s mean uncle. To them, that freakin’ nosferatu was comfort food for the soul. I can’t see it; if there was a poster of that old demon on my bedroom wall I’d sleep with a garlic necklace and a shotgun. But they got their own world. Some of them may be pissed off with the mullahs, but what if some of them like it? I don’t know, CNN doesn’t know – and for every dissident blogger or tweeter they interview, there might be ten silent-majority types wanting those damn hippies in the streets of Tehran gassed.”
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-irans-cedar-show-aka-dont-get-excited-the-protestors-are-just-letting-off-some-steam/
=======================
Damn right I won’t accept it. I’ll say it again…if the Iranian security forces had sided with the people, as we saw in Egypt, the regime would be history.
========================
More anti-regime mythology … Only 70 people or so died in the riots, and nearly half of them were police and security forces who showed more restraint than French or American forces would have shown under similar circumstances. Security forces who exceeded their mandate have been punished or are in jail awaiting trial.
The Western media for the most part did not show the ugly side of the rioters from amongst the otherwise peaceful demonstrators, which disgusted a large majority of Iranians, including anti-Ahmadinejad people.
It appears to me that your ideological hatred of the winners of the election has blinded you, much as the arrogance of Musavi blinded him. And this comes from a former SUPPORTER of Musavi.
The Iranian regime showed remarkable restraint overall. It made serious errors as well, but they did no worse than any other modern republic would have done under similar circumstances. Musavi and Karubi have not been imprisoned as they should have been.
==============
If the Iranian security forces had sided with the people
==============
Everybody — good and bad — always invokes “the people”. Well in this case, the “people” were a minority who lost, and who were deceived by Musavi and used by Rafsanjani. It did not take long for most of “the people” to realize that, hence Musavi’s and Karubi’s current isolation.
What happened in Iran was not a popular uprising; it was a demagogic attempt by Musavi to seize power. Even his own former supporters see that now. Since the attempt failed that leaves basically two possibilities:
1) The Iranian regime must have been truly ruthless;
2) Musavi and Karubi really did not have as much support as some people claim.
The low death toll amongst the rioters speaks for itself. The regime was not ruthless. The Internet was never “shut off” entirely: I maintained internet contact within Iran during the entire period.
And even if it were so: so what? There was no Internet or cell phones when the Shah was toppled. If there was really the support you claim for the opposition, the regime would not have stood a chance.
At the end of the day, this was a Machiavellan attempt by Rafsanjani to maintain his power base within the system. There was never a popular or grassroots movement for an uprising, and Iran is moving on. As the Arabs say:
“The caravan has left, and the dogs bark”
Musavi and Karrubi will continue to bark, the Western media will continue to cheer for them, and Iran will move on. Read what objective Musavi supporters like Kaveh Afrasaibi have written about this.
But if you insist on believing emotionally tinged anti-Iran propaganda in spite of all the counter evidence, then to you be your way and to me mine.
As an transplanted Egyptian, I wanted to address some of Corey’s points about the Green movement and the Egyptian revolution.
First I want to emphasize my opposition to government brutality everywhere. People have a right to protest peacefully, even if they are wrong.
1) When we ask for proof of election fraud, what we mean is someone out of the hundreds of thousands of people who observed the voting (including 40,000 Musavi observers) to say that ballot boxes were stuffed/stolen. That the count they witnessed was different from the individual ballot box count the Iranian government subsequently published. Or that the were not allowed to observe the voting. So far we have seen none of that. In the event of massive fraud with 46 million voters, those things must have taken place and there must have been too many witnesses for any government to silence.
By Contrast, During Egypt’s parliamentary elections last year, the rules were changed the night before the election whereby observers were required to obtain police permission to observe. This proved almost impossible to do in 8 hours time. Of those very few that managed it, some were actually able to videotape secretly ballot boxes being tossed/stuffed etc. See the difference?
2) The Iranian government managed to stage massive counter demonstrations on multiple occasions. I know everyone was deriding them as rent a crowds.
Mubarak managed to get a few mini demonstrations, the largest of which was generously estimated to be 20,000. Others a few hundred or a thousand. That’s it. If he could have assembled 500,000-million or more like the Iranian government did, he would still be president today.
3) Journalism and the internet. IIRC, Iran slowed down the internet substantially. But Egypt shut it down completely. It even shut down cell phone service completely for a while. Egypt revoked Al Jazeera’s license. (they continued to cover the story in secret, not naming their journalists) They actually had thugs attack journalists to the point where most left. Al hura and Alarabia, which were very pro Mubarak were allowed to stay.
4) Brutality. To my knowledge, the Iranian opposition claims 100 dead over the entire protest period. (June to February)
Egypt’s dead is estimated to be 300 or more in 18 days.
This is not to say that Iran’s government doesn’t resort to brute force/intimidation/torture. And it certainly is not to say that people in Iran should not be allowed to oppose their government’s policies, or even the government itself. But there is a difference between Iran and Egypt. I just wanted to point them out.
Anon,
I’m glad to see someone knowledgeable about Islam dispute the view that all unbelievers are going to hell. I had heard it so often that I had grown weary of it. I’ll look into it myself. If you know of any books or resources about that, I’d be grateful.
Thanks again for your prayers for Egypt. They seem to have worked. A lot of work is ahead, so keep praying for us.
====================
Anon of 20:02 and 20:55: Are you the same Anon who offered his prayers for Egypt in an earlier thread?
====================
That’s me :-)
Peace
Thanks Saker,
Get well…
Fantastic and very personal answers to comments herein.
You never fail to amaze….
Kudos to you,
Joe
@Corey:What “evidence” is there that the election was not stolen?
Since I cannot prove a negative, the answer here is none. But if you do some research, and not just with NED/CIA fanboy sources you might find this out for yourself. Google is your best friend.
If you supported the bloody Pasdaran crackdown
Hahahahaha! Let me tell you this – the Pasdars never left their barracks which, in itself, is a good proof that the demonstrations never had enough traction to threaten the regime. You confuse Basij and Pasdar. The demos were handled by a mix of Basij and riot cops.
@C.H.: What “evidence” is there that the election was not stolen?
see above
If you supported the bloody Pasdaran crackdown
see above
I feel that I have an obligation — as someone who has unrestricted access to internet and media– to try and help those who are suffering in Iran.
Yeah – you just forget to mention that you are a NavySeal fanboy:
Quote:
Shortly after arriving in Boston this morning I saw the news that Captain Richard Phillips was freed by US Navy SEALS in the Gulf of Aden…3 of his captors were shot dead and the fourth was captured. Hearing this gave me a great rush of patriotism, and I hope that all Americans felt the same way.
(http://unitedworldforpeace.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-moment-for-all-americans.html)
“Red White n Blue” all the way – right?! And a big, big, friend of Iran. As are, I am sure, your grinning Navy SEAL friends (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OL_he9UMTSQ/SeJ9BQgdKRI/AAAAAAAAA84/PHU8o40FUiQ/s400/Navy+SEALS.jpg)
Seriously boys – I am not going to waste any more time on arguing with loyal imperial doubleplusgoodthinking secularists who, for all their professed love for Iran and its people, want to turn it into a clone of their beloved US of A.
I love the USA, by the way. I love its people and its amazingly beautiful nature. Its the EMPIRE which I hate. This is what I despise: http://electricpolitics.com/media/photos/militaryspending2011table.jpg
As for Israel – yes, it is an abomination, a colonial regime built on an unabashed “in your face” kind of racism. Your double standards in comparing the “it ain’t all sunshine” in Iran (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and the Ueber-racist-terrorist regime on the planet, Israel, says it all.
The one good news is that your side is loosing not only in Iran, but everywhere else: Lebanon,Egpypt, Palestine, Russia, the Ukraine, Latin America and pretty much everywhere else. Sure, you get a tactical victory from time to time (coup in Honduras) and our side screws up from time to time too (Chavez excesses in Venezuela). But all in all, you are strategically loosing on all fronts and I don’t see the point of arguing with ideological folks like you.
Maybe somebody here will, but not me.
Cheers!
=======================
I’m glad to see someone knowledgeable about Islam dispute the view that all unbelievers are going to hell. I had heard it so often that I had grown weary of it. I’ll look into it myself. If you know of any books or resources about that, I’d be grateful.
=======================
Well, the only book you need to look at is the Qur’an ;-) There is one ayah that often gets ignored in these discussions:
“It is not for Allah to send a people astray until He has made clear to what what they should be aware of. Surely Allah is all-knowledgeable of everything” 9:115
Hell is for those who act against what God has made clear to them, whether through their conscience or through divine teaching and exhortation. If it’s not clear, then Allah does not punish that.
More famously:
“Sure those who believe, those who Judaize, the Christians, and the Sabians [Hermeticists and the like]: Anyone who believes in God and the Last Day, and who acts righteously: Their reward is with their Lord. No fear shall be upon them, nor shall they grieve.” 2:62
The meaning is quite obvious without interpretation.
What Allah condemns is covering the truth after one clearly recognizes it. That is the main meaning of ‘kufr’ as used in the Qur’an.
=================
Thanks again for your prayers for Egypt. They seem to have worked. A lot of work is ahead, so keep praying for us.
=================
Ask all of your friends there to make a visitation to the mosque in Cairo where it is said that the head of Imam Husayn (S) is buried. It is a wonderful treasure, a place where prayers are answered, and a place to gather strength for the struggle ahead. InshaaAllah the field of energy of the head of Imam Husayn will become the ship of salvation for the people of Egypt.
Peace
This comment has been removed by the author.
correction
============
It is not for Allah to send a people astray until He has made clear to what what they should be aware of.
============
=>
“It is not for Allah to send a people astray until He has made clear to them what they should be aware of.”
The ‘to them’ is important. To make something clear is to make it clear to someone so that that someone recognizes it clearly. And that’s exactly the import of the Arabic, and the ‘to them’ is explicit.
Peace
Good string of postings with the exception of C.H. and jack…
C.H. why don’t you go back and contribute your hogwash “facts” on blogs with people of similar mindsets, and where you are more welcome, such as at Iraqi Mojo’s blog? :)
Furthermore, on a moral level, pure democracy is “morally open ended”. As Dostoevsky wrote – “if God does not exist, all is allowed”.
If you read the Bible, it would seem there is no atrocity or abomination that is not permitted as well, just so long as “God”—or rather his self-appointed representatives—state that it is God’s will. Killing homosexuals, stoning adulteresses and beating wayward youths to death are all permissible in the Bible. Holy wars against non-believers? History is full of them. Religion in almost every country and culture throughout history has been used to justify war, oppression, genocide and social stratification.
I can never understand why religionists see religion as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite. I can’t imagine a pure, secular democracy voting to refuse pain treatment to all cancer victims in the name of allowing them to experience the suffering of Christ, but medical textbooks in the US advocated this as late as the 1950’s, and I can see a religion-dominated government making painkillers illegal on this basis. Indeed, painkillers are illegal outside of the medical-industrial complex, another example of public “morality” imposed by religion that has led to an enormous amount of hardship and suffering in this country. Most of our Gulag inmates are there for drug offenses, after all.
I see no reason whatsoever to think that a religious-based government would allow more freedom or justice for people than a secular government. Instead, there would be a predictable imposition of arbitrary, puritanical “moral” codes on people that serve only to take the fun out of life and make people miserable, while leaving the predators at the top of the food chain free to exploit us for fun and profit.
I am saying that the rule of men must be constraint by the rule of God.
It would be nice if God took control of this planet, but he hasn’t. Instead, we have a bunch of sociopaths and con-men claiming to act in his name. There is no rule of God, there is only the rule of men who falsely claim to act in his name. Life in a country organized according to the principles of the Christian Identity or Christian Reconstructionist movements would be a living hell.
The less we have power-seeking people, religious or not, telling us what to do, the better.
@Anon
“More anti-regime mythology … Only 70 people or so died in the riots”
Yes, according to the REGIME. You forget that foreign and independent media were shut down in Iran during the unrest, no one could see what was happening. The opposition claims hundreds were killed, but since the government blacked everything out and left Press TV and Tehran Times to reveal the death tolls, no one knows for sure. What I do know is that Iran’s executions are going off the charts…at the rate they’re going, they will have hanged more people by March than all of last year. They cranked up their executions in 2010, too.
“and nearly half of them were police and security forces who showed more restraint than French or American forces would have shown under similar circumstances”
Again, according to the regime itself. None of these attacks have really been documented, unlike the brute force that was used on protesters…which is everywhere.
“Security forces who exceeded their mandate have been punished or are in jail awaiting trial.”
That is nonsensical BS and you know it.
“The Internet was never “shut off” entirely: I maintained internet contact within Iran during the entire period.”
So did I, but that’s because the young people of Iran are smarter and more capable with technology than a bumbling old bad Santa and his henchmen. In this day and age, it is impossible for an authoritarian regime to shut down all modes of communication…the world is too complex, luckily.
“If there was really the support you claim for the opposition, the regime would not have stood a chance.”
Its all about the security forces, I told you before. Hosni Mubarak would still be the President of Egypt if his forces had moved in and attacked the protesters. Similarly, Saddam Hussein would have been rubbished into history’s trash bin back in 1991 if his security forces had refused to burn down Karbala and mass murder hundreds of thousands of people. The Iranian regime’s forces ate up the statements by the clerics that the protesters had “declared war on God” and delt with them in a way that their beliefs demand.
“The low death toll amongst the rioters speaks for itself. The regime was not ruthless.”
You are relying way too heavily on the IRI’s use of censorship. In Egypt right now, the world knows the death toll because there were journalists from all over the world present in every major city during the uprising. Media filmed the events 24/7. Iran was the exact opposite…no one from the outside could see. The fact that the regime is on a killing spree with executions should show you that the hateful government media is lying through its teeth was it claims only “70 people died and half of them were security forces”.
@Lysander,
Thank you for acknowleding that Iranians have a right to protest against their government like Egyptians did. We may disagree on some issues, but this is a fundamental human right that everyone should be guaranteed. A few points I would like to make…
“In the event of massive fraud with 46 million voters, those things must have taken place and there must have been too many witnesses for any government to silence.”
This is the convenient argument the regime would like you to use. The government announced that Ahmadinejad was heading for a landslide victory literally as the polls closed, which pretty much revealed that the they had already decided on the results before votes were even counted. Khamenei openly cheered for Ahmadinejad and made no secret of his desire to see him win. The “how can 11 million votes be rigged?” argument was enthusiastically employed by Khamenei when people angrily took to the streets to protest these results. As usual, he talked down to Iranians like they are misbehaving children. The Iranian people may be silenced right now, but they make a mockery out of the alleged support for Ahmadinejad when such a small number of people turn out to support him, most recently Friday.
“The Iranian government managed to stage massive counter demonstrations on multiple occasions. I know everyone was deriding them as rent a crowds.”
The regime does have its supporters, but “rent a crowd” seems to sum it up pretty well. Did you notice the regime avoids using full footage when its supporters rally during 22 Bahman? They couldn’t even fill Azadi Square last year (unlike the 2009 protesters, who not only filled it, but filled up all the streets leading up to it) and it looks like their showing was even more pathetic a few days ago. The protests may be squelched, but the significant disinterest in rallying for the government shows just as well if not more how out of date and unwanted the regime is.
“They actually had thugs attack journalists to the point where most left.”
As aweful as that is, at least they were there in the first place…the only media active in Iran during the unrest (and for the most part, even today) were state-run media.
“Hahahahaha! Let me tell you this – the Pasdars never left their barracks which, in itself, is a good proof that the demonstrations never had enough traction to threaten the regime”
The Basiji receive their orders from the Revolutionary Guards and are tasked with the same goals — squelching internal dissent and ensuring that the “revolution” is protected. The Guards may not have been shooting people like the Basij were, but the IRGC generals were all over the state-run media after the elections, labeling the protesters “seditionists”, “spies”, and “enemies of God” while their minions went to work.
“Yeah – you just forget to mention that you are a NavySeal fanboy”
Ah…so I suppose you would have taken pleasure in seeing the Captain get killed? I bet if it was an Iranian government official being held by pirates and rescued by the Revolutionary Guards Naval forces you would have cheered their success :D
BTW, read some of my posts about Afghanistan and you’ll see I’ve got plenty of criticism for the US armed forces.
“Your double standards in comparing the “it ain’t all sunshine” in Iran (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and the Ueber-racist-terrorist regime on the planet, Israel, says it all.”
How? I think you just proved my point I made about Israel and Iran…you support the Iranian government because it hates Israel (and your comment above reveals just how deep your hate is). Unlike me, most of your politics are centered around Israel. This is why you have such disdain for the pro-democracy movement in Iran…they threatened to topple Israel’s adversary and worse, some of them went so far as to say that they would only die for Iran and not Lebanon or Gaza :O
Can you seriously tell me that you would have been cheering for the unrest in North Africa if Hosni Mubarak was anti-Israel like Saddam Hussein?
“C.H. why don’t you go back and contribute your hogwash “facts” on blogs with people of similar mindsets, and where you are more welcome”
Oh come on anon…aren’t political discussions more interesting when you can have a debate instead of just exchange points with people you agree with? :)
====================
Religion in almost every country and culture throughout history has been used to justify war, oppression, genocide and social stratification.
====================
This contains both a general claim about religion accompanied by hyberbole. When we take out the hyperbole we get the more common claim
“Religion throughout history has been used to justify war, oppression, genocide and social stratification.”
I assume you would agree. Ok, then:
Secular ideology throughout history has been used to justify war, oppression, genocide and social stratification.
So what’s new?
==============
I can never understand why religionists see religion as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite.
==============
I can never understand why secularists see secularism as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite.
Ever heard of WWII? More people in a battle between three European secular ideologies than all the so-called religious wars combined. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets and Americans), Iraq, the list goes on and on.
======================
I see no reason whatsoever to think that a religious-based government would allow more freedom or justice for people than a secular government.
======================
I see no reason whatsoever to think that a secular-based government would allow more freedom or justice for people than a religious government.
It all hinges on what _you_ mean by ‘freedom’. Perhaps you speak of hedonistic freedom. Maybe not everyone in the world agrees with that as an ideal. Maybe it’s not right to wish that on everyone.
====================
Instead, there would be a predictable imposition of arbitrary, puritanical “moral” codes on people that serve only to take the fun out of life
====================
Have you ever been to secular Singapore? Where you can be whipped for writing graffiti on a wall?
And maybe things are not as “arbitrary” as you imagine. And what secular country does not impose its own “moral code”, one much more “arbitrary” than any religious code? There are only fictional lines of demarcation here, all dictated by a relativist ethical foundation. And what could be more arbitrary than that?
====================
and make people miserable, while leaving the predators at the top of the food chain free to exploit us for fun and profit.
====================
sounds just like the jolly old US of A to me! and EXACTLY what authentic “religion” inveighs against relentlessly!
These arguments against “religion” are worn out non-sequiturs. Whatever one can accuse religion of, one can find a counterexample within secular ideology that’s much worse.
One does not have to be religious to see the sophistry of these kinds of anti-religious arguments. One of my teachers, an atheist for sure, used to say:
“The religious fanatics are exceeded in their fanaticism only by the non-religious fanatics.”
This kind of reason constitutes a kind of “racism”. What do I mean by that? If I say, as a white person, “The Chinese have a history of crime and war”, this is only a half-truth that serves to justify white prejudice against the Chinese. But the fact of the matter is that war and crime are manifestations of the human condition, White, Chinese, Black, Hispanic, Arab, etc etc.
[contd]
[contd]
Similarly, secularists say “Religion has a history of war and intolerance”. Well, again, war and intolerance are are manifestations of the human condition, and can be found in every major religious tradition and every major secular tradition. Let’s speak of cosmological systems in general, regardless of whether they are inspired by Adam or Prometheus. Let’s talk about the implications of these systems, both ideally, practically, and historically. But merely parroting the same tired old non-sequiturs about “religion” is just a bankrupt exercise in demagoguery.
That being said: I believe that the practice of secularism in general, including liberal-capitalist, fascist, and communist have caused more human suffering than anything attributed — rightly or wrongly — to any other system created by man.
Peace
@C.H.”Can you seriously tell me that you would have been cheering for the unrest in North Africa if Hosni Mubarak was anti-Israel like Saddam Hussein”
I know the query is not directly addressed to me but:
Yes (as someone who cheered the fall of Mubarak – and hopes that the entire zio-amer regime goes down the drain – and also,that inshallah,and an Islamic government comes in its place) – YES!
In fact many of us were cheering on multiple occasions when the Shi’as and the more politically aware Shi’a leadership of Iraq did in fact seriously challenge Saddam (la) . But given the arms deals that the regime had with the United States (before things went sour) he had more than enough ammunition to slaughter whenever there was a challenge to his regime.
So, yes being against the zionist entity is not the defining criteria…
AnonAndes
@C.H.”Can you seriously tell me that you would have been cheering for the unrest in North Africa if Hosni Mubarak was anti-Israel like Saddam Hussein”
I know the query is not directly addressed to me but:
Yes (as someone who cheered the fall of Mubarak – and hopes that the entire zio-amer regime goes down the drain – and also,that inshallah,and an Islamic government comes in its place) – YES!
In fact many of us were cheering on multiple occasions when the Shi’as and the more politically aware Shi’a leadership of Iraq did in fact seriously challenge Saddam (la) . But given the arms deals that the regime had with the United States (before things went sour) he had more than enough ammunition to slaughter whenever there was a challenge to his regime.
So, yes being against the zionist entity is not the defining criteria…
AnonAndes
====================
Yes, according to the REGIME. You forget that foreign and independent media were shut down in Iran during the unrest, no one could see what was happening.
====================
No, there have been independent assessments as well. People have names, id’s etc.
And the Musavi-Karubi reactionaries has been caught using fake names and id’s as well to inflate the casualties, a point the Western media conveniently overlooks.
=================
“and nearly half of them were police and security forces who showed more restraint than French or American forces would have shown under similar circumstances”
Again, according to the regime itself.
=================
No! According to independent observers. These people are not just numbers: They have real families and loves ones too.
Human beings have such a capacity to dehumanize the “other”. It’s like the supporters of the Islamic Republic are not human beings. This is a form of intellectual blindness.
===================
“Security forces who exceeded their mandate have been punished or are in jail awaiting trial.”
That is nonsensical BS and you know it.
===================
Is your heart so closed that you won’t even investigate this? Too much risk to find out that there are real human beings on the other side of your iron curtain?
===================
“If there was really the support you claim for the opposition, the regime would not have stood a chance.”
Its all about the security forces,
:
Similarly, Saddam Hussein would have been rubbished into history’s trash bin back in 1991 if his security forces had refused to burn down Karbala and mass murder hundreds of thousands of people.
===================
If the Islamic Republic had killed 1000 during the protest, let alone 100,000, it would be impossible to hide. Go to Iran someday, to Tehran. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to hide the kind of numbers you are talking about. You talk about the governement lying. Well let’s assume that’s true. The opposition leaders have consistently lied as well. So there remains the task of objectively parsing between the two. And guess what? Independent observers and even pro-Musavi people have realized that the opposition leaders have taken the world for a ride. Not that the government is any angel, but that the story fed the world is full of so much propaganda.
====================
The fact that the regime is on a killing spree with executions should show you that the hateful government media is lying through its teeth was it claims only “70 people died and half of them were security forces”.
====================
Even if your claim were true it would be an utter fallacy to infer your conclusion from your premise, and would flunk any logic exam.
Peace
@Sean: If you read the Bible, it would seem there is no atrocity or abomination that is not permitted as well, just so long as “God”—or rather his self-appointed representatives—state that it is God’s will.
The idea that the Bible should, or even could, be read like a cookbook (“follow the recipe”) is a typically Western error which stems form Martin Luther’s wholly non-Christian idea of sola scriptura. As any spiritual book, the Bible needs to be read within a specific hermeneutical methodology. For example, Patristic Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism use the “same text” (not really, the Rabbis used the Masoretic text, traditional Christians the Septuagint, but nevermind that now) and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Your personal “interpretation” of the Bible is therefore necessarily completely mistaken as it simply cannot be correct. I don’t expect you to agree with that, I am just telling you this to explain why it would be pointless for me to discuss your thesis itself.
It would be nice if God took control of this planet, but he hasn’t.
If He did that, you would bitch about Him not allowing free will :-)
Seriously, what you want is what I call the “cop God”. A good which uses His omnipotence to make us all behave. The problem is that according to most religions, God wants our FREE submission to Him because He does not want robots, but humans who CHOOSE the Truth.
I can never understand why religionists see religion as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite.
I can never understand why secularists see secularism as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler would make the worst of the worst of all bloodthirsty religious mass murders in history look like meek sheep in comparison to their millions of killed people. How about capitalism itself, the religion of greed and wealth? Or do you believe that the European settlers which “genocided” all the native Americans did so moved by a deep religious feeling?
to be continued…
… continued
Yes, the record of murder, genocide and imperialism of many religious nations is appalling. But what the secularists did only in the 20th century really should put them to shame beyond any kind of finger pointing at religious folks.
Life in a country organized according to the principles of the Christian Identity or Christian Reconstructionist movements would be a living hell.
Yep, quite true. What you are confusing is God, religion and religious people. Think carefully. If we assume that there is a God and that He chose interact with mankind by granting it a religion (regardless of how He would do that), and if we observed that there are 10 religions out there, we could only have two possible conclusions: a) all religions are mistaken (like like Bertrand Russel once wrote “God created mankind in His image and mankind returned Him the favor”] or b) only ONE religion is true. In that case blaming the “true” religion for the mistakes of the 9 others would make no sense. Blaming God would be even more absurd. So when you lash out are religion you are missing the target almost by definition. Furthermore, you are clearly forming opinions about one religion (Christianity – of which there are many branches, but nevermind) on the basis of the kind of crazies that you see in the USA claiming to represent Christ and the faith he granted us.
You know what the traditional definition of true Christianity is? It is the faith established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers. To know if something truly belongs to that faith, it needs to be a teaching which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, i.e., believed by in all parts of the Christian world, in all times since Christ and by all Christians (thus, no innovation can possibly be considered Christian). Furthermore, any text, including the Bible, to be understood in the truly Christian manner must be approached in the so-called “spirit/ethos of the Fathers” (their spiritual, ascetic and mystical mind) and its correct interpretation would only be one on which the Fathers would agree (“consensus patrum”).
By this traditional your “Christian Identity” or “Christian Reconstrucitonists” are not even Christians, regardless of their claim to the contrary. And yet, you would use them as examples of Christianity and blame Christians for the kind of folly they embody.
With all due respect, may I suggest to you that your judgment about religions in general and Christianity in particular is rather superficial and not really based on any meaningful knowledge of that faith?
sorry for the typo.
“By this traditional your “Christian Identity” or “Christian Reconstrucitonists” are not even Christians”
should read:
By this traditional criterion of Christianity your “Christian Identity” or “Christian Reconstrucitonists” are not even Christians
======================
The government announced that Ahmadinejad was heading for a landslide victory literally as the polls closed, which pretty much revealed that the they had already decided on the results before votes were even counted.
======================
Musavi announced that he was heading for a landslide victory literally BEFORE the polls closed, which pretty much revealed that he had already decided on the results before votes were even counted.
For all the blather of Musavi and Karrubi, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER the elections were stolen. And no, emotional and emotive arguments — Oh! It just couldn’t be!!! — don’t count. But, as Hitler pointed out, people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one. Even Hamid Dabashi — who, trust me, hates the government more than you do — had to fall back of the sophistry of “social fact” to justify the anti-government protests.
In any case, once again, your premise does not establish your conclusion: yet another non-sequitur. It does not even matter that your conclusion is false or at most a half-truth. Independent western pollsters predicted an Ahmadinejad victory days before the polls closed. Plus: The methods of vote counting — decentralized — and the use of multi-party observers and counters — including Musavi’s — would make the bar for fraud so incredibly high, and the conspiracy of silence so stupendously implausible, that logic and Occam’s Razor would appear to dictate to any objective mind that the election was won by Ahmadinejad fair and square.
Peace
Hi C.H./Corey!
I would be a hypocrite to deny Iranians the right to protest. And in answer to another query, I admit without shame, that as an Egyptian, I’m very grateful to Iran’s very inspiring stance against Zionism and U.S. imperialism.
That said, I have no right to ask Iranians to fight the battles of others. I would respect whatever choice Iranians make on their own for their own country.
Now to the points at hand.
1) “This is the convenient argument the regime would like you to use.”
Maybe so, but that isn’t proof the argument is wrong. Once again, fraud on the scale claimed by the opposition MUST leave a HUGE physical footprint and THOUSANDS of witnesses. That Musavi has thus far been unable to come up with any such evidence, even when invited to do so by the Guardian Council, makes his claim very doubtful.
2) “The regime does have its supporters, but “rent a crowd” seems to sum it up pretty well. Did you notice the regime avoids using full footage when its supporters rally during 22 Bahman? They couldn’t even fill Azadi Square last year”
The point is that Iran could “rent a crowd,” very big ones in fact, whereas Mubarak could not. The crowds enilsted by the government were enormous. You can do a search on youtube for pro Ahmadinjed demos and see them. Here is one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dsSZhtwpyo At about 2 minutes in, you will see how large they were.
3) “As aweful as that is, at least they were there in the first place…the only media active in Iran during the unrest (and for the most part, even today) were state-run media.”
The Egyptian government lost control of the street after day 4. Riot police had either been beaten or deserted to join the protesters. In Iran, the first week of the protests, IIRC, there were minimal attempts at crowd control. The government waited one full week before sending out the riot police and Basijis in force. It is remarkable that given one whole week the protesters did not rah critical mass.
Cont’
4) Polling data in Iran is quite clear. Charney research’s IPI poll shows results entirely consistent with the election.
33. [ASK ONLY IF RESPONDENT ANSWERES YES ON Q33 ABOVE ]
Who did you vote for in that election?
Respondents…………………………………………………………………………………………………….311
Official Globescan UM WPO CR 9/10
Turnout 6/09 6/09 9/09
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad….63%……………56%……….61%……….55%…………58%
Mir Hussein Mousavi……..34%…………….32%……….30%……….14%………….6%
Mohsen Rezai…………………2%………………2%…………2%…………3%…………..3%
Mehdi Karroubi………………1%………………0%…………0%…………1%…………..0%
Other…………………………………………………..1%…………0%…………………………..0%
Refused to answer………………………………..7%…………5%………..24%…………27%
Don’t know………………………………………….2%…………1%…………3%…………..6%
Respondents…………………………………………………………………………………………………….360
34. Would you say this election was completely free and fair, somewhat free and fair, not
very free and fair or not free and fair at all?
Globescan WPO CR 9/10
6/09 9/09
Completely free and fair……………………….54%……………………….66%…………58%
Somewhat free and fair…………………………22%……………………….17%…………22%
Not very free and fair…………………………..10%………………………..5%…………..4%
Not free and fair at all……………………………6%…………………………5%…………..5%
Refused to answer………………………………..4%…………………………2%…………..3%
Don’t know………………………………………….4%…………………………5%…………..8%
Total free and fair………………………………76%……………………….83%………..80%
Total not free and fair………………………..16%……………………….10%…………9%
Total not completely free and fair……….38%……………………….27%………..31%
With all this, it is not unreasonable to doubt claims of election fraud.
That said, Iranians have EVRY right to protest and should be able to do so without fearing the government. If you want to protest for freedom of speach/press, I would support you. If you want to protest against any government policy, I would support you. If you want to protest against corruption, I would support you. And even if you want to protest the election results, i support your right to do that. But I would not believe you.
My best wishes to you and to Iran. I pray for its continued strength and success in all its endeavors.
C.H., one last thing. I really do not worry about Iran’s government being overthrown. Because ANY independent government of Iran would conduct almost exactly the same foreign policy Iran is doing now. Below I copied I post I made at race for Iran yesterday.
Since there is rumored to be an anti-government demonstration in Iran this coming Monday, there were some points I wanted to raise.
1) Iran’s religious constitution and Islamic requirements are supremely irrelevant to US policy makers, beyond their rhetorical value in demonizing Iran. Venezuela is not a religious state. Neither was Nasser’s Egypt. If post revolutionary Egypt becomes a secular democratic nation with a Nasserist foreign policy, it will also be demonized (though it will be a rhetorical challenge)
2) Let us assume for the moment that a critical mass of Iranians become unsatisfied with the current religious regime and manage to change it. Will that end US hostility? No.
3) Any Iranian government not imposed by the west will conduct its foreign affairs almost exactly as this one. ESPECIALLY NOW! No Iranian government will give up it’s nuclear program. No Iranian government would throw away its influence in Iraq or Lebanon. Those are strategic assets of enormous value. They cannot be given away for free, and the west could not plausibly offer something of comparable value in return.
4) Any independent Iranian government will never allow a foreign nation to decide what technologies Iran may pursue and which ones it will not.
5) Any independent Iranian government will seek to be the most powerful country in the region. It will almost certainly try to find common cause with coreligionists elsewhere.
6) The US and Israel cannot tolerate a Muslim nation stronger than Israel. Even if Iran were to recognize Israel, it could not be allowed. Intentions matter less than capabilities. That is why sanctions will NEVER be lifted no matter what Iran does.
7) The circumstances in which the US supported imperial Iran’s rise to power no longer exist. Back then, it was a precious bulwark against the USSR. That dynamic is no longer there. There is no upside for the US in seeing Iran become powerful, even with a friendly government. Maybe in 30 years a counter weight to China or India will be needed. But not now.
8) Pro western Iranians consistently underestimate the requirements the US would impose for normalization. Ending the nuke program and aid to Hizbullah just wouldn’t cut it. You would have to develop a close relationship with the US military and intelligence services. They will then “advise” Iran on which generals should be promoted. Who should be their interior minister. Who will be chief of police. Etc. It wont be the kind of advice you can accept or disregard at your own whim.
9) The process of becoming a stooge can be slow and insidious. I don’t Think Hosni Mubarak of 1985 would have ever expected to be part of a blockade of Gaza. And yet, he was.
Therefore, I wish Iranians the very best. If they are not happy with the current setup, I hope they can come to a consensus that most can live with. SO long as the change is from within, nothing that matters to the outside world is likely to change.
Saker,
But watch-out for events in Saudi Arabia … I have written for years that unless the Crypto-Zionist Al-Saud Dynasty disappears and its symbiotic alliance with the Wahhabi’s/crazies vanishes completely, there is very little hope for Muslims , since Saudis would like for all Muslims Sunnis to remain backwards and obscurantist and remain utterly beholden to Riyadh/KSA and the Saudi Dynasty for money, for Qur’ans, for Mosques and all useless/unfocused Jihadi activities worldwide….
Cheers,
J
@ALL
Lydander wrote this:
That said, Iranians have EVRY right to protest and should be able to do so without fearing the government. If you want to protest for freedom of speach/press, I would support you. If you want to protest against any government policy, I would support you. If you want to protest against corruption, I would support you. And even if you want to protest the election results, i support your right to do that. But I would not believe you.
Just for the record – I completely agree with him.
Splntered Sunrise on why it’s quite likely that Ahmedinejad did win the election
http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/06/
If true those freedom loving middle class Greens were protesting against democracy, like the oligarchs in East Caracas.
That said I don’t condone the brutality of the repression and the torture that allegedly went on in police stations.
Your personal “interpretation” of the Bible is therefore necessarily completely mistaken as it simply cannot be correct.
Nobody buys this argument but Christian apologists. The idea that no one can read the Bible and possibly understand what its says but the “experts” who have appointed themselves God’s representatives on Earth is inherently and demonstrably false. The fact is with enough creativity, you can put a positive spin on anything, even the most appalling crimes. That is what the PR industry is for. Attempts by apologists to put a positive spin on the more atrocious passages in the Bible amount to intellectual dishonesty, and not an exposition of the facts.
Comparisons of secularism to Communism are equally specious. Communists carried out their crimes and their agenda in the name of communism, not secularism. Communism as an ideology and in practice was never a secular movement, but one which sought to use the power of the state to repress religions, which is the antithesis of secularism. Secularism as an ideology stands for the separation of church and state.
Communism is best understood as a form of religion in itself, with its own rigid dogmas, holy books, saints like Karl and Vladimir, and an evangelical determination to spread the belief to all non-believers, by force of violence if necessary. In that it has much in common with many religions throughout the ages, and nothing in common with a belief in separation of church and state. It is misleading and completely inaccurate to lump all secularists in with communists. The problem is not God-belief, but the fanatical and unquestioning obedience to rigid, inflexible dogmas and the leaders that represent them that major ideological systems like communism and most religions encourage in their members. History shows what this usually leads to.
Secularism is not the absence of religion, or anti-religion, but a belief that the activities of religion and the state should be kept separate. There has been no regime in history that has carried out a program of genocide or oppression in the name of secularism. Not one. Uncountable atrocities and crimes have been carried out in the name of religion throughout human history. Freedom of conscience and freedom of and from religion are the basis of secularism, as you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. There is no religious society in history that has accorded the degree of religious liberty that modern secular societies have. In fact, it is safe to say that religious liberty is impossible without secularism, as few existing religions recognize other religions as being as equally valid and worthy of influencing the government and society as their own. The moment one religion gets to impose its beliefs and mores on society, all other dissenting religions and individuals suffer.
The distinction here is not “secular vs religious” as the majority of secularists also belong to some religious faith or another. The distinction is between freedom of religion and religious oppression. Secularism is the belief in religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Religionists feel they have a God-given right to impose their beliefs on others. This is not liberty. It is and always has been tyranny.
Part two
Furthermore, you are clearly forming opinions about one religion (Christianity – of which there are many branches, but nevermind) on the basis of the kind of crazies that you see in the USA claiming to represent Christ and the faith he granted us.
I am doing no such thing. I am making observations on religions in general based on the unquestionable historical record of those religions in multiple countries, where the similarities across completely divergent faiths and cultures are often astonishing. Every religion considers itself The One True Faith (TM) and all other faiths to be lesser than if not completely false. I did not and do not say that all Christians or all religions are equal in their historical record of oppression and atrocity, but only that such a record exists in every society, without exception, if not for every denomination. I would not compare the Quakers to the Christian ID movement, but I will say that an incalculable amount of human suffering, bloodshed and oppression can be laid at the feet of people who call themselves Christians. You can’t just gloss over that fact.
While you are right to say it is wrong to castigate all Christians as equally culpable for the crimes of their fellows, it is equally wrong to cherry pick these crimes and say that they are only caused by bad Christians pursuing false doctrines, and no one from the One True Faith would ever behave like this. This is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where any example of bad Christian behavior is rejected on the basis that no true Christian would behave like that. Christianity is what Christianity does, and not what its apologists say it stands for.
As for who consitutes the One True Faith, that has been the subject of debates and wars for centuries, has it not? But if the Bible is the basis of Christian belief, than the Christian ID and Reconstructionist movements would seem to be closer to “true” Christianity if only because they regard the Bible as 100 percent literal truth, not subject to spin or interpretation by people with an agenda, and believe that its prescripts and rules are a blueprint for the running of society that must be obeyed to the letter. The people running around saying gay marriage is okay and women can be priests clearly aren’t following the Bible, however noble their intentions may be.
===================
Communism as an ideology and in practice was never a secular movement.
===================
Saying communism is not secular is like saying Judaism is not a religion. Judaism is sufficiently different from, say, Christianity that if one identifies Christianity as THE exemplar par excellence of the concept “religion” that Judaism does not quite fit. But it’s ridiculous to say that in the broad sense Judaism that is not a religion.
The only thing you are doing is offering a narrow sense of the word ‘secularism’ that exludes the exemplars you don’t like.
Communism IS secular: It is not merely secular, but it is secular. The same is true of fascism, liberal capitalism, and related ideologies.
You may have a conception of secularism that exludes all three; in which case you would have to attack all three just as much as you attack religion. You would have to argue against a liberal capitalist, fascist, or communist/socialist government just as much as you argue against a religious one.
Secularism is only one ingredient of secular ideology, just as sacrality is one element of “religion”. You make a broad sweep against ALL religion while cherry-picking your secularism.
Put simply: You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
=====================
There has been no regime in history that has carried out a program of genocide or oppression in the name of secularism. Not one.
=====================
This is debatable and, if true it is only a half-truth. Fascism and liberal capitalism are secular, and have carried out genocide and oppression throughout the 20th century and beyond.
You are trying to narrow the meaning of ‘secular’ into a veritable non-existent, non-implememted ideology that has never been implemented so as to escape the evils that have committed in the name of secular ideologies. Communists often say that true communism was never implemented. Muslims, Christians, Capitalists, etc can each come up with a pure or ideal notion of their framework that either has never been implemented or which was implemented only for a brief moment in history.
I am quite familiar with the US secular movement, I know Paul Kurtz of the Center for Inquiry and other avowed secularists who advocate a purist secular line. Their agenda includes a much stronger line against “religion” than you have described; if in power, they would be no better than communists for sure.
In summary: it is unfair to judge the history of religion against some ideal of secularism that has allegedly never been implement. Hence your statement above is at best a half-truth. Comparing the history of “religion” against the history of secularism in practice shows a total lack of restraint by secular ideologies on the unpridled pursuit of power and domination, resulting in the bloodiest century in the history of humanity.
Peace
Thinking about this exchange reminds of one of meetings I attended with Paul Kurtz and company at the Center for Inquiry, the famous center for secular studies. In one of the sessions, there was a consensus of the attendees, all leaders of the secularist movement, supporting a decision in either Denmark or Holland where a judge forced a “religious” family to send their children to a secular elementary/high school against their will. They argued vehemently that it was in the interest of the state to make sure that the youth were not exposed to “superstition” at a young age at a religious school etc etc.
So even Sean’s more “purist” secularism is quite capable of supporting the imposition of secular values on others. Secularism has no inherent protection against the three corruptions of religious or ideological practice: fanaticism, plutocracy, and tyranny.
Peace
The problem here is you are using the definition of secular as “anything that is non-religious.” This is a category that is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The majority of human activities and ideas, even those associated with religious organizations, are secular. A Catholic school is a non-secular institution, but most of the activities that go on there are secular in nature. Most of the concepts taught are secular, not religious.
A football game is a secular activity, and football teams are secular organizations. Does this mean they belong in the same category as communism? Because it is just as wild a stretch of logic to say that anyone who believes in secular government is in the same league as the communists even if there isn’t a scintilla of ideological connection between them.
The idea that everything that is non-religious belongs in the same category as communism is obviously false to anyone that doesn’t have an agenda of trying to link non-religion to all the world’s evils, and that includes governments and ideologies.
Where is the direct ideological and non-incidental connection between secularism and communism? There is none. Yet you call communist regimes “exemplars” of secularism with absolutely no definable basis in reality.
You lump all secular-ists (in the ideological sense I am using) in with the communists with about as much of a connection with communism as a random football team. Secularism as an ideology is the belief in separation of church and state. Communism as an ideology holds that the state has a right to suppress and even eliminate religion. Secularity as a state of being is merely the absence of religion, not automatic hostility towards religion. The suppression of religion is entirely consistent with communist ideology and not the result of a failure to implement “pure” communism. It is completely inconsistent with secularism as an ideology.
Secularty was incidental to the crimes of communist regimes, like the fact they were mostly carried out by males. This does not create some sort of natural bond between secularists and communism any more than it does between most males and communism.
As for the fascist regimes, they were almost universally conservative, and supported by and supportive of the church. Hitler was a Catholic, as was Peron, Mussolini, Franco and a large number of other fascist leaders. They used religion as a tool to legitimize the state and encourage people to defend the regime against the “godless communists” who they saw as their primary enemies. They were anything but secular and were usually explicitly religious in their character and associations with the church.
The Nazi ideology of anti-Semitism had its roots in traditional Christian anti-Semitism. Nazi soldiers marched into battle with “Gott Mit Uns” on their belt buckles, hardly the motto of a secular regime. They were told they were fighting a “crusade” to protect Western civilization against the atheist communists, much as Americans were told they were fighting a “crusade” to protect Western civilization from the Muslim hordes. They invoked God as justification for their actions at every turn, just as we were bombarded with religious-themed mottos like “God Bless America” after 9-11.
The invocation of God and appeals to religion are not the characteristics of a truly secular regime. Even Stalin resorted to as much during WWII as a means of raising morale, and the churches willingly complied. Does this mean the Soviet Union became a religious state during WWII, or was the use of religion purely opportunistic and incidental to a regime whose real agenda was the maintenance of communist power?
Secularism has no inherent protection against the three corruptions of religious or ideological practice: fanaticism, plutocracy, and tyranny.
I never said it did nor would I make such a ridiculous claim. Nor did I use Kurtz as an example of “purist” secularism, whatever that is. Any concentration of power in the hands of humans has the potential to be abused, though history has shown people who fancy themselves to be carrying the mandate of Heaven tend to far more enthusiastic in forcing their ways on the rest of us than secularists are.
======================
The problem here is you are using the definition of secular as “anything that is non-religious.”
======================
No, that’s not it. The secular cosmological commitment (Promethean sense) involves the principle that the meaning and value of the human being is an intrinsic feature of the human being. Hence the human being is fundamentally autonomous. The Adamic cosmological commitment (eg Abrahamic traditions) involves the principle that the meaning and value of the human being is an extrinsic feature of the human being. hence the human being is not fundamentally autonomous.
The Promethean cosmological commitment sees the human being in essential conflict with the Divine: The Gods keeps humanity in darkness and the light of Reason and Technology provide the keys to his salvation. The separation of church and state is just one way of practically instantiating this commitment so that the state is founded on the Promethean and church is kept a private affair. Communism is another, and arguably more pure, secular system. Here the secular cosmological commitment is carried through to the realm of the Spirit. Modern Kurtzian secularism (closest to yours) tries to do the same thing but based on a different materialism.
The Adamic cosmological commitment sees the ideal human being as a reflection of the Divine, in harmony with the Divine: God shows man the path to recognizing Him and to reaching His Presence. Revelation and Meditation (including reason) provide the keys to man’s salvation. Because the Divine provides universal Gurdianship and Love to humanity the response to God must also be universal, so the separation of a sphere for man and a sphere for God is intrinsically inconsistent with the meta-cosmological commitment. Hence the resistance to secularism of any variety by the Muslim world at large, for example.
It is these two cosmological principles around which the whole religion-secular divide revolves. Each principle constitutes a meta-cosmological commitment with various instantiations.
Communism, liberal capitalism, and fascism are instantiations of the Secular/Promethean cosmological commitment; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are instantiations of the Adamic cosmological commitment.
=======================
Secularty was incidental to the crimes of communist regimes.
=======================
This is flat-out false. Ask anyone who lived under, e.g., Soviet communism. The secular cosmological commitment was at the root of many of the crimes of the Soviet Union. Again you are trying to separate secularism from the instantiations of its very cosmological foundation.
====================
As for the fascist regimes, they were almost universally conservative, and supported by and supportive of the church.
====================
These — and other alliances of convenience — were extrinsic, not intrinsic, to the ideologies at issue. Fascism finds its justification in the post-Enlightenment alienation of Man as expressed by Nietzsche and other secular thinkers. Hitler was no practicing Catholic:
“The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.”
Martin Borman was an avowed atheist, and Hitler almost certainly was as well.
The alliances made for the sake of power cannot be confused with the ideological foundations and the cosmological commitments at issue.
[contd]
===============
The invocation of God and appeals to religion are not the characteristics of a truly secular regime.
===============
Sure, and the invocations to “kill infidels” for the purpose of expanding wealth and power are not the characteristics of a truly “religious” regime. Most so-called “religious” wars had nothing to do with religion.
On the other hand, the relation of materialism to secularism is more intrinsic. So wars fought for the sake of oil or other material gain are more intrinsically “secular”, even if the proponents of secular ideologies such as liberal capitalism use religion as an “opium of the masses”, as Marx used to say. And secular slogans are used as well, by both communist and capitalist regimes. “Freedom”, “civil society”, “feminism” all provide purely secular slogans for justification in oppressing and massacring others.
================
Any concentration of power in the hands of humans has the potential to be abused, though history has shown people who fancy themselves to be carrying the mandate of Heaven tend to far more enthusiastic in forcing their ways on the rest of us than secularists are.
================
This is simply false, or maybe once again you are referring to some ideal ephemeral practice of secularism with no instantiation in the real world. Or maybe you are simply being dogmatic. Even Kurtz, the reknowned standard bearer of the secularist movement in America, you seem to distance yourself from. In the real world, secularism has been the biggest force of destruction in the last 100 years. If one denies this based on some idealization of secularism, then others can appeal to some idealization of their “religion” as well.
If you can, read Ali Shariati’s lecture “Religion versus Religion” for a deconstruction of some of these issues.
Ok, I’m done with this topic for now, and
Peace
wow quite the comment avalanche (sorry I got busy, so belated response)…
well my questions concerning your politics have certainly been answered: more than anything else you are a political romantic and idealist. And as long as your heart is in the right place (which it is), why not. Discussion of ideas, no matter what they are, becomes practically impossible though with someone who has this need/will to romantically idealize whatever is important to him. I mean, for example, belief aside, what discussion is possible with someone, who after centuries and centuries of schisms and sectarian warfare, and after studying the innate violence of the biblical narrative, claims to know that “REAL” Christianity is non-violent.
Maybe YOUR personal Christianity is non-violent. Or, how can you claim that the ideology Vilajat-e-Fakih Shi’sm, irrespective of where one stands on this line of thought, is “the most advanced and refined”. The way you phrase it makes a discussion impossible. One cannot argue with a tv commercial. But that’s how romantics are. Ambivalence, ambiguity, empiricism: not for you guys….
Anyway, I’ve been reading your blog for years and will try from now on to limit myself to comment on things we agree on.
@Guthman: political romantic and idealist
Wow! I have been called much worse in the past :-)
Besides, I think that this characterization of myself is not untrue. So,
Guilty as charged!
Will be my plea.
I wish you a wonderful day – and thanks for your comments :-)
The Saker
@Guthman: On 2nd thought – I still want to address some of what you wrote:
what discussion is possible with someone, who after centuries and centuries of schisms and sectarian warfare, and after studying the innate violence of the biblical narrative, claims to know that “REAL” Christianity is non-violent. Maybe YOUR personal Christianity is non-violent
I would put it differently. The Church is a ‘hospital’ for the ‘spiritually sick’. In other words, the Church is filled with sinners. What makes those sinners different is not that they are better than other humans, but only that they are aware of their need for ‘spiritual healing’, in other words, their need to reach a higher, better, spiritual condition. In one word – to become better. That awareness in itself does NOT mean that those in the Church succeed in becoming better, only that they are trying, however feebly.
Second, there have indeed been 2000 years of heresies, schisms and sectarian warfare. However, it is my contention that the word “Christianity” is not a subjective category which anyone can apply to himself/herself. I mean, sure, anybody can claim to be a Christian, but what I am saying is that does not make it so. The faith “established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers” is an OBJECTIVE category with which one is free to disagree or re-interpret, but such reinterpretations are not within the corpus of Christian teachings. For example, I can create my own Chruch and claim that God wants us to only eat pop-corn. I can even call myself Christian and say that the Gospels unambiguously teach the salvific nature of pop-corn ingestion. That is my right. But THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. So, if we assume that there are, say, 10’000 branches of self-declared Christianity out there, my contention is that either a) all of them distort the faith “established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers” or that b) all of them EXCEPT ONE do so (two or more is not a logical option since the 10’000 branches contradict each other). Lastly, I would be some bizarre type of Christian if I did not believe that I correctly identified the one “branch of Christianity” (to use modern parlance) or the “One Church which Christ established at the Pentecost” (to use a traditional formulation). Does that make sense?
how can you claim that the ideology Vilajat-e-Fakih Shi’sm, irrespective of where one stands on this line of thought, is “the most advanced and refined”.
That is, of course, my wholly subjective opinion. I would gladly re-phrase is like so: of all the branches of Islam of which I am aware of, the Shia tradition in the school of jursiprudence followed by Hezbollah is the one which I am most interested by, and attacted to. That is not an objective statement of fact, but a wholly SUBJECTIVE inclination of mine.
Anyway, I’ve been reading your blog for years and will try from now on to limit myself to comment on things we agree on.
That would be very boring, would it not? Keep on speaking your mind on any topic you want, and I will do likewise.
Cheers!