Okay, Here is a story being carried by the New York Times that highlights the danger of religion gaining too much power over a government. The Iranian Supreme Court has overturned the murder conviction of six members of the Basiji Force. The group is infamous for carrying out attacks attacks on pro-democracy meetings and on reform politicians. They also are the self-appointed enforcers Iran’s Islamic Penal code, which parallels the civic code. The Basiji Force’s supporters include the Iranian’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the country’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is also a former member. “I’m not only the Iranian president, I’m a former vigilante”.
The six men’s murder convictions stem from the brutal murder of 17 people in 2002. The Supreme Court overturned their convictions because Islamic law permits the murder of people who are ‘morally corrupt’. In this case, moral corruption can include armed robbery, adultery by a wife (not by a husband, of course), insulting Muhammad, or even holding hands with your fiance in public! Worse yet, it is left up to the vigilantes to decide who is and who is not ‘morally corrupt’. Convictions can even be overturned in the case of mistakenly identifying someone as morally corrupt, though a fine needs to be paid the victim’s family.
This is clearly a moral outrage. The punishment doesn’t come close to fitting the ‘crimes’ and enforcement is entrusted to the arbitrary whim of vigilantes. I know that some Muslims will point out that this is not taught in their religion, but that gets at the very heart of the problem of mixing religion and politics. Who’s interpretation can we trust? What is to prevent even the most benign interpretation of Islam as law from being reinterpreted in an Iranian fashion? This goes for any other religion as well. Since interpretations of any religion varies so drastically, none of them can be trusted enough to be codified into laws. This sort of oppression is strong support for the separation of Church and State.
–Sidfaiwu
Related posts:
I don’t even know where to start with this. How do you solve the problem of the defective brainwashed people without also harming the more mainstream Muslims?
When a radical religious freak commits an outrage in the name of their faith we often hear “mainstream” members of that group trundle into the media to abhor and condemn the act. This is somehow perceived as enough by both the media and the faith group responsible for the outrage. It is not. If a faith group/religion/etc. does not make it official that, for example, self detonation or (civil) unlawful killing is forbidden, not just unacceptable, then THAT WHOLE FAITH GROUP is culpable for that and any other subsequent outrages committed in its name. This would deny wheedling religious freaks from allowing themselves and other freaks a loophole of the “we condemn this murder/suicide bombing/beheading/stoning/(insert atrocity here) but our Book has very strict Views on…….)
In an ideal world an unhealthy interest in religion would disbar individuals from politics or lawmaking. In this far from ideal world those of us who do not subscribe to spiritual Views depend upon civil law to defend us from the imposition of those Views upon us.
Phill
Faith groups should be used as combustible to heat houses and such.
“This is clearly a moral outrage. The punishment doesn’t come close to fitting the ‘crimes’”
Actually, the Quran states that this is the punishment for the crime. I know there are 1 or so verses that say not to do this ,but 100′s that exhort true muslims to kill the nonbelievers or apostates. It’s written, no question.
A moderate muslim, isn’t a muslim. I know they will say that I’m cherry pickin the quran, etc. but if that is said see if they say that killing an infidel in the name of the faith is wrong, or killing one who isn’t just is wrong (according to the quran).
The problem to me is the vigilantism. I do agree this is a morally reprehensible act but the concept of vigilantism is even more dangerous.
A vigilante is not someone who justs acts on the spot, they do not act when they see the crime but they generally observe further the so called criminal and plan how to act.
It is a premeditated act where they seek to inflict as brutal punishment as possible suitably fast to circumvent possible criminal investigations or judicial acts.
In this case there were no crimes as seen in western society and thus these social vigilantes are even more accepted within their own cultural background.
People generally agree with social vigilantism to some degree but they forget that social vigilantism is also one of the most dangerous ones to social order.
Assuming the president would perform an act reprehensible to a vigilante group, then it would be justification for the groups to mete out their justice to the president. Some would say it would be poetic justice but never the less, it would be a pathway to total anarchy.
Also, I find the overturning of the convictions also be responsible for furthering the anarchy. As it is clear sign from the ruling body that vigilantism is acceptable and one needs not worry over following laws and regulations which are necessary for any functional society.
So, I fear this might be an opening shot for even worse acts of violence.
Hey Jagganath, I sort of get where you’re going, but in my country vigilante behaviour is no excuse. In any case, you still need a mental “locus” for these views to function as rational. If everybody told you that killing was bad, no matter what, I don’t think you’d go out and kill people who were against your beliefs.
True, it is no excuse around here either but as so often proclaimed in these forums, one has to take culture into account.
So with an assumption that Iranians do not have same cultural abhorrence to killing and violence as for example people in my country then our thinking cannot fully comprehend what they feel about it.
Either way, if I would be a betting man, I would say worse things are coming to happen there.
Indeed, if you believe you have a greater power riding shotgun with you, then you’ll do whatever it takes.
Let’s not give up hope on Iran. There was a time when people got away with lynching in the United States. See http://www.liu.edu/cwis/CWP/library/african/2000/lynching.htm
But we have stopped that. I believe that Iran will do the same. Yes, Iran is behind the United States in human rights it gives its people, but it didn’t help the situation that in 1953 the United States overthrew “Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister who nationalized Iran’s oil.†Then the United States put in his place the puppet Shah. This led to “…the Shah’s post-1953 crackdown on secular and democratic opposition groups and how this approach translated into the radicalization and Islamization of dissent.†See http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml
When will Americans put their war criminals on trial?
Hello RandalJones,
“There was a time when people got away with lynching in the United States”
Yes there was, but those occurred because of a lack of enforcement of the law. Never has a lynching conviction been overturned by the US Supreme Court. In effect, those vigilante murderers were endorsed by Iranian government via the highest court in the country.
“[The United States] didn’t help the situation that in 1953 the United States overthrew “Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh”"
No we didn’t. While I do think it is important to remind the US of its many foreign policy mistakes, I don’t think it should be used to mitigate the oppression.
“When will Americans put their war criminals on trial?”
I’m sorry, could you put that in context? I’m not sure how US war criminals is relevant to the Iranian Supreme Court. Even if you mean the ones from the early Cold War days, the ones responsible for installing tyrants across the globe, I don’t see how this comment is relevant. Most, if not all of them are dead or dying. Did you have anyone in mind?
sidfaiwu,
You say “Never has a lynching conviction been overturned by the US Supreme Court.â€
But you can’t think of any American war criminals that are alive.
I am sure the thousands of people that were lynched, but went unnoticed by law enforcement and the media, feel better knowing the U.S. Supreme Court never overturned a conviction. I suspect your statement is not true. Even it is true its not saying much because if there no law enforcement that convicted people of lynching, there can’t be any convictions to overturn.!!! :) :)
Henry Kissinger is probably the most well known war criminal, but I am sure there are many more. Why not look at the current Bush administration, to find war criminals?
The United States illegally invaded Iraq and bombed its infrastructure and killed thousands of people and is now fueling a civil war. Ironically, it was the United States that helped to bring Saddam Hussein into power and supported him strategically and financially when he was committing his worst atrocities.
Speaking of lack of law enforcement, here is an article http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089 that talks about how Brits and Americans who were caught attempting to set off bombs in Iraq and were apprehended by the Iraqi police. The American soldiers took away their countrymen away from the Iraqi police and the British broke into the jail in which their countrymen were in and helped them to escape.
By pointing out the United States war crimes I am not mitigating the oppression of people of Iran, I am pointing it out because history might be repeating itself; there is talk of the US attacking Iran. Allow the Iranians to solve their own problems.
US war criminals are relevant to the Iranian Supreme Court, because Iranian human rights activists can not improve the situation in their country if the United States drops bombs on them and engages in regime change.
Here is an article called “Leave Us Alone,†Iranian Reformers Say
http://www.progressive.org/node/4253
I surely would like to know how US war criminals fit into this news article? The insistence on dredging up a pet peevees does not really factor in the issue of supreme court overturning convictions of murderers based on their definition of religion, which differs from the earlier courts decision which have been based on law.
To the issue, I am not giving up on Iran but if one thinks of the situation it seems clear to me that when the highest officials of a country say that killing people is fine and dandy just because you did not like how the dead people looked, then the governmental body is encouraging acts of violence based on personal world view.
I rather not live in a country where a group of people can kill others because they see themselves superior to others.
Hello again, RandalJones,
“I am sure the thousands of people that were lynched, but went unnoticed by law enforcement and the media”
I admitted as much in my comment. Still, there is a very big difference between local law ignoring evils and the national law endorsing evil.
I don’t know too much about Kissinger, unfortunately. While I agree with you about Iraq and the Bush administration, those topics are irrelevant to the post. We aren’t dropping bombs on Iran (and I hope we never do).
“Iranian human rights activists can not improve the situation in their country if the United States … engages in regime change.”
I agree. Any Iranian engaging in building a democratic Iran will have more trouble because of the bad image the US is giving democracy. America has an extraordinarily poor history of regime change and nation building. The only shining success that I am aware of is post World War 2 Japan.
Jagannath and Sidfaiwu,
The highest officials and the national laws of the United States allows the country to engage in regime change, exploit the natural resources of other countries, and fuel conflicts by selling weapons to one or both sides of a conflict. Saying it is being done to spread human rights and democracy (which it really isn’t) doesn’t put the United States and its allies on a higher moral level
While all the mainstream media and much of this website spends all of its time finding something to criticize about the Muslim world, guess what? Iran has converted from the US dollar to the euro (something Saddam Hussein had down before the US invasion), and the value of the US dollar continues to go down. So despite the big media attention about those European Muhammed cartoons, the crazy Islamic fundamentalist jihadi mullahs have not stopped the conversion from the US dollar to the euro. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COR20070412&articleId=5370
Hey RandalJones,
Who said anything about the US being on a “higher moral level”? I believe you were the one to start comparing the morality of different countries.
Do you seriously want to defend the Iranian Supreme Court? If so, then defend it. Pointing to the immorality of others has never been an acceptable defense for another’s immorality. The fact that America exploits other countries does nothing to mitigate the crimes of the Iranian courts. It would be like justifying stealing a car because your neighbor robbed a bank last week. It doesn’t work.
“much of this website spends all of its time finding something to criticize about the Muslim world”
No, this website spends most of its time finding things to criticize about all religions. There is plenty of criticism to go around. If Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Scientologists, and all other superstitious-minded people stopped doing stupid and/or immoral things based on their beliefs, we’d stop criticizing.
This brings me to some questions I’d like to direct at you. What is your motivation for commenting on ReligiousFreaks.com? My motivation is transparent; I promote rationality and reveal the dangers of irrationality. From reading your comments, my guess is that you want to criticize America’s foreign policy and expose the hypocrisies of western media. There is plenty there to criticize. If that’s the case, why do that on a religious blog? Your material would be much more at home on a political blog. Because of the different natures of the topics, you tend to make comments that only tangentially connect to the post and lead conversations off the topic of religion.
You seem like a very well-informed individual. I’m sure you have some very interesting thoughts on religion. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on many of the topics discussed here. I’m less interested in hearing about America’s political failings. I am quite well aware of the immoral aspects of my government and fight against it each and every time I vote and write to my representatives. Besides, it is off-topic on this blog.
sidfaiwu,
I am atheist, but I disagree with the popular claim that religion is to blame for most of the wars and problems of the world. You have people like Sam Harris who are growing in popularity. There are numerous publications and websites geared to atheists, that are delusional in their claims of intellectual and moral superiority over religious people.
If you are going to talk about Osama Ben Laden and you are intellectually honest, you can not avoid a discussion of his alliance with the CIA. IF you are going to talk about 9/11 and you are intellectually honest, you can not avoid talking about the growing grass roots movement that is questioning the official government explanation of what happened that day. If you are going to talk about Iran and you are intellectually honest, you can not avoid discussing the United States’ military and political interventions in various countries in the Middle East.
You say I am off topic on this blog, but you say nothing to Naery who wrote:
“Faith groups should be used as combustible to heat houses and suchâ€.
One of many examples, which show there really is not much difference between the religious person and the atheist.
Randall, what sid is trying to say is that saying the US is no angel doesn’t put Iran off the hook. This is about a theocratic state that is allowing the murder of dissenters who want freedom, not grumbling about American conservatives. The US has no flawless record, but we have the ability, at the least, to improve. We once had slavery, we do no longer. We once didn’t let women vote, we let them now. Iran, however, is stepping backwards with a theocratic regime that endangers good people who deserve better. Something should be done. But what? This is what we need to ask.
Thanks RandalJones, it helps to have the perspective of where you are coming from.
I come down somewhere in the middle (as usual) with respect to the role religion plays in world problems. It is not inherently a problem causer; i.e. religion can exist, and even thrive, without causing major problems. I look to the Buddhists to exemplify this possibility. But it is not entirely innocent either. Even if not the root-cause of many conflicts, it does serve to escalate disagreements to the level of conflicts. It is used as a means to motivate the masses to support conflict. Also, religion is used as justification for oppression. The inquisitions are prime examples.
In the case of this post, religion is being used to justify allowing murder. Religion is clearly to blame for this problem. Granted, other factors made conditions favorable to a fundamentalist government, the ’53 US regime change being one of them. But that is not the justification being used by the oppressors, Islam is.
“If you are going to talk about Osama Ben Laden and you are intellectually honest, you can not avoid a discussion of his alliance with the CIA.”
Not necessarily. It would be incomplete to not mention Osama’s CIA support, but not necessarily dishonest. If speaking morally, for instance, it doesn’t matter how Osama is able to wage jihad, it only matters that he wages jihad. Relevent to this site, it matters why Osama does what he does since he uses religion to both carry out his evil and to justify it. If speaking historically, then you are right, it would be dishonest. If writing a comprehensive work on the man, it would be dishonest. It is not when speaking morally.
“You say I am off topic on this blog, but you say nothing to Naery who wrote”
Well, what Naery wrote was pointless, but not off-topic, blog-wise. He/She was writing about an aspect of religion (faith) on a religion-themed blog. I usually just ignore pointless comments since they are not worth responding to. I’m sure Naery was just expressing frustration and/or raw opinion. That is perfectly acceptable, in my book, even though such comments don’t merit a response.
Your comments, however, have been worth responding to. The fact that I charged you with drifting off topic has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the respect I have for the potential quality of your comments.
“there really is not much difference between the religious person and the atheist.”
Agreed. There is, however, at least one difference. Religious people are prone to irrational thoughts and actions much more often than atheists. Since rationality is so important to me, that is a very important difference.
Reading over the last few comments we have made, RandalJones, there is actually a lot we agree on. I guess the role of religion in world problems is something we’ll just have to disagree on.
Hey Snurp,
Our comments crossed paths. Your comment is right on and you stated it much better (and more succinctly) than I could. Thanks.
Snurp,
What do you know of Iran and what it has experienced? DO youu know that Iran has taken in 2 million war refugees? Guess from where? Aghanistan, another of many countries the United States has intervened in. The United States recruited and trained Muslims to fight its proxy war against the Russians. This helped to facilitate the collpase of the Soviet Union, making the U.S. the number one superpower in the world; and the U.S. didn’t even help and try to help in reconstructing the Afghanistan.
DO you know that the United States fueled both sides of the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980′s resulting in millions of deaths? See http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292
Where is your indignation and calls for putting any American war criminal on trial?
The United States gets sanctions placed against Iran and any other developing countries it wants. If the same type of sanctions had been placed against the United States through its early stages of development and if it had been bombed numerous times and occupied by foreign powers, how far would it have advanced?
In the West we have democracy, freedom of speech and many other freedoms. But the freedom most people choose to exercise is the freedom to remain ignorant.
Right now the Arab countries are taking in the refuggees from the Iraq war, with Syria taking most of them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6575755.stm
While you are preaching to Iran about those who got away with killing 17. Syria is wondering why isn’t the UNited States helping with the refugees of a county it invaded? Millions have died from the two invasions and the sanctions placed in Iraq and millions more have left the country.
The Iraqis are wondering why did the U.S. bomb their country when it was the United states that helped to bring Saddam into power. WHy if they were after Saddam for WMDs, did the Untied States use WMDs on the Iraqi people? http://www.uruknet.info/?p=32014
Snurp, if you haven’t been able to stop the United States from committing war crimes around the world, what makes you think you will be able to improve things for the Iranian people?
Iranian activists will do what needs to be done to improve their country. Those living in the West can help by keeping Western countries off the backs of not only the people of the Middle East, but also the people of Africa, South America, and Asia.
Randall, apparently, according to you, I said that the US needs to be the great World Police Officer. I did not say that. I said that Iran’s government sucks. I stand by my statement. If you want to get into a discussion of the Iraq War, this is not the place. I will say this much: we are there now, and the people are caught between a rock and a hard place. It sounds to me like you would have us just up and leave, leaving the people to their own devices. I would like that, if it would work. However, between an Iran that intends regional domination, an Iraqi government that can’t watch itself, and a terrorist force (guess who) trying to turn the region into a staging area, I doubt leaving would go well. We screwed up excessively in the last few decades. You’re not brilliant for pointing that out. But that isn’t the point here.
Snurp,
In comment #17 You said “Something should be done. But what? This is what we need to ask.” That sounds like you want to be the World Police or the maybe the World’s Parents.
You claim a terrorist force (do you mean former CIA ally Osama Ben Laden and AL Qaeda is?) trying to turn the region into a staging area. Hmmm, it sees that the longer we stay in Iraq the worse things get, but the U.S. government is in denial of that. Are you in denial of the fact that the main reason the U.S. is occupying the country is to take control of the oil in Iraq?
I think the UNited States should leave Iraq, but make an honest attempt in reconstructing the country. In other words, it should do the oppostie of what it did in Afghanistan, when the CIA recruited and trained Muslims to fight its war against the Russians. (THis helped to facilitate the collapose of the Soviet Union and made the UNited States the number one super power in the world). WHen the war ended, the U.S. did not try to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
You think the United States should leave Iraq and attempt to reconstruct the country at the same time? I don’t understand how that will happen when extremists blow up everything that gets built as it is. I doubt the fighting will just stop when we leave, especially when there are two groups that seem quite determined to exterminate each other, with countries allied behind either side.
As far as turning the area into a staging area, do you think that leaving would make things better? People who hate the US would just stop all of a sudden?
Finally, in reference to my question, I will put forward a tentative answer:
1.) Multilateral action, not bilateral (just us trying to take care of everybody)
2.) Create an Iraqi force that can take care of itself
When I listen to Americans in Iraq and who have left talk about Iraq, their response to how much the people hate us is pretty much the same: they hate us when we leave their street. Things aren’t getting better, but they can get a lot worse if we go.
But I’d rather talk about religion than the Iraq war that gets argued about every day anyway. I could go elsewhere to do this, and so I’ve had enough.
Snurp,
WHile the United States has been in Iraq, billions of dollars have been wasted. U.S. and Iraqi officials don’t know where it has gone. It has been reported several times that the Americans that go to work on reconstruction projects in Iraq, have little or no experience in the field.
You would rather talk about religion. Well it has been made clear that that religion should be kept out of government. I agree with that. The necessity of separation of CHurch and state has been made clear over and over again on this website and in the media.NOw what about the issue of the UNited States interfereing with governments in the developing world? Look at all the deaths and destruction it has caused. Shouldn’t that be addressed? What about the United States collaboration with Muslim extremists? Why are the Afghanis paying the price of the UNited States actions? People complain about Saudia Arabia’s human rights violations, but for some reason they don’t say anything about the fact that the UNited States accepts trillions of dollars of investment money from the Saudis. DO you see how you can not separate religion and foreign policy?
Saddam Hussein was helped into power by the UNited States and he was supported by the U.S. when he was committing his worst atrocities. THen when he stopped doing the United States’ bidding that was the time to bomb the country. Saddam was secular and women were highly educated and had more rights than many of the surrounding countries. Now look at the miserable situation of women. Even before Saddam rose to power, women were very liberated in Iraq.
You say you only want to discuss religion. Religion and life are intermingled with each other they can not be separated. I think what you really want to do is point out other peoples faults but not your own. You claim you want to help the Iranins, I don’t think you do. You just want to sanctimoniously preach to them, without doing your part to solve the problem: gettting the UNited States to stop intervening in other countries, allow the people to make their own mistakes and solve their own problems.
And you want to abandon the world to solve their own problems. I somehow doubt that things will just get fixed. World history tells me that much.
I’ve had enough of this one.
Snurp,
I didn’t say abandon the world, I say treat them as your equals. THe UNited States one minute supports a dictator, then as soon as the dictator doesn’t do what it wants, the UNtied States bombs it. Of course the UNited States doesn’t give that as the reason for the bombing, instead it says it is looking for WMDS or wants to spread human rights and democracy.
World history tells me that U.S. involvement in MIddle East has only made things worse. Thankfully there are AMericans that have learned from history. There is a grass roots movement to try to stop any attempts of military intervention by the UNited States in Iran. HOw can they improve human rights if they are always under attack, always being threatened, having sanctions placed on them for activities that many other countries are doing. Collective punishment of a people does not help improve human rights. We shouldn’t do it because we wouldn’t like it if it was done to our country.
Perhaps there is a possible future for conversation yet.
I would say that, historically, leaving countries alone leads to peace…after a destructive process. Take Somalia. International forces leaving would lead to even more chaos than there is now. Peace may come, but at the cost of many, many heads, and perhaps the death of a culture or two. Iran, as another example, had the Shah, who was backed by us and certainly wasn’t popular. I’ll give you that. However, the current Islamic regime degrades women’s rights, suppresses dissenters, and in general isn’t nice. It’s relatively peaceful (besides Kurdish activity in the north and the occasional protest gone awry). As a relativist, one could say that it’s just my Western bias speaking. That’s true. However, I continue to hold this position because I believe that it allows for the position that people can be free to change their minds. If they disagree, then that’s fine with me. However, Iran’s government doesn’t allow for dissent. That’s the problem.
As pertaining to the US and regime building: yes, they’re bad. Politicians have a tendency to look at the moment instead of the long run. Russia was no more concerned for what they were doing than we were during the Cold War, and so they supported Marxist governments that don’t do so well these days (see Eastern Europe and it’s attempt to re-enter the world market). Now we seek to find a way to fix the damage of those days. That, and the disintegration of European-led imperialism has led to the fragmentation of nations into arbitrary states (Iraq, for instance) that can’t sort out their own situations.
I think where you and I differ is not on the goal, but the emphasis. You seem to me to focus on the freedom of the state. We interfere with governments and screw things up. This is true. I, however, focus on the individual level. I ask what these governments are doing and am willing to reject governments that are in violation of what I consider as basic rights. Here we get to Iran. If we leave them alone, they will likely, in my thought, continue suppression of freedom. However, I agree that going in to ‘improve’ the country would be a mess. It should also be noted that I was, and still am, against the initial invasion of Iraq. There were good reasons for going (treatment of Kurds being perhaps the biggest example), but those were not why we went, and sudden regime change just doesn’t work. However, we are there now, and the whole world is watching. The previously secular government is gone, replaced by angry Shiites asking for what they feel is rightfully theirs and frightened Sunnis attacking for fear of their lives. Meanwhile Iran is pushing for power in the region, and Iraq is the only other Shiite majority country, so they intend to move there. Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria aren’t stupid, and so support the Sunnis. Al Qaeda likely sees in the chaos a chance to gain support for greater anti-American support. I believe that if we leave the place will erupt (that is, more than currently), millions instead of thousands will likely die, and anti-Americanism will really pick up, since we will have abandoned the people. I said previously that Iraqis tend to get angry mostly when we leave. If we leave them now, and Shiites start trying, with Iran’s support, to either forcibly remove or annihilate the Sunnis, everyone will be much more pissed. This is, by and large, my position.
As for allowing other countries to do what they choose, I generally agree with that. But I still side with the individual. If the government in question doesn’t allow individuals basic freedoms (as Iran seemingly doesn’t), I think something must be done, which was the question in my original post. Call it bias if you will, but I’d rather be biased towards individual freedom than be a relativist who ultimately has little ground to stand against blatant injustice (I don’t think you are a total relativist, but I think your position is risky). If we stand nowhere, we must fall.
I intended to stop posting in this thread because I figured the arguments would get nowhere. However, I strive for the ability to have civil conversation between both sides, and I think there may be hope here yet. Also, I still think this should focus on a religious situation in Iran and not on stupid things America does. We know plenty enough about that.
Snurp,
As mentioned in comment #9, the Shah cracked down on secular and democratic opposition groups.
THe UNited States was supporting Saddam when he was mistreating the Kurds.
As for push for power in Iraq, Iran is not the only one. People are blind to the involvemnet of Israel in Iraq. If the Western governemtns and the media were honest reporting on both countries actions in Iraq, we might see a decrease in violence. BUt unfortunatley this will not happen. THis is probably the main reason that the violence will continue if the U.S. leaves. In addition, even if the U.S. leaves, it will still interefere with Iraq because the main reason it went there was to control the oil production.
THere needs to be a grass roots movemnet to put pressure on the mainstream media and government to be honest about the U.S.intentions in Iraq.
You say we should focus on the religious situation in Iran, how about also focusing on human rights activists in Iran, or does this website just want to present Iran has a hopeless basketcase of religious fundamentalism. sidfaiwu, has already explained the situation and the early comments have already expressed outrage at the situation, so what’s next?
Why not discuss the activists living in Iran who are trying to change things, but then that is not easy to do since the mainstream media gives most, if not all, of its attention to the extremists. THe West says that they want to see Iran develop human rights, so why don’t they give recognition to human rights ativists? IT was done once in 2003, when Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activists was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But how often did she appear in American media. Did you read the link I posted previously “‘Leave Us Alone,’ Iranian Reformers Say” at http://www.progressive.org/node/4253
You say we know plenty about the stupid things that America does, but despite living in a democracy and having freedom of speech we have not been able to do much about having a say concerning its foreign policy.
to All Athics specially gasmonso:
All I got Is 4 Questions, I want 2 hear the answer of those Questions from You, Just?
1- What’s The Soul?
2- Who Create All things from Nothing?
3- How the Fingerprints never ever get match even with twins?
4 – what’s Magic, Black magic, spell?
Hello Truth,
Though you directed this question to atheists, I hope you don’t mind if I answer these questions.
1- What’s The Soul?
Nothing, in reality. It’s an ill-defined term that religious people use to separate themselves from the rest of nature. It makes them feel better because it makes them ‘special’.
2- Who Create All things from Nothing?
As a deist, I’d say ‘God’, but certainly not the God of the Qur’an or Bible. The ultimate creator doesn’t need to be described in a human book. thoughtful, honest atheists will admit that they don’t know the answer to that question. The difference is that they are okay with that. They don’t need a myth to falsely answer the question for them. They can live with that uncertainty.
3- How the Fingerprints never ever get match even with twins?
Environment. It is obvious that cells must use information from their environment to decide when to split and even what kind of cell to become. Every cell in an organism has the same genetic material, yet different cells (heart cells, skin cells, etc.) form as a result of where they are in the body. I’m sure the differing environment causes the uniqueness of figure prints between twins.
4 – what’s Magic, Black magic, spell?
A fiction created by superstitious people to explain events that they don’t understand.
I
Truth:
um, what?
Should we take him serious? vigilante. This what happens when you give a guy to much power, get it “power”.
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is also a former member. “I’m not only the Iranian president, I’m a former vigilanteâ€.”
Great job over again. Thank you=)
You completed a number of good points there. I did a search on the matter and found the majority of people will go along with with your blog.
Good – I should certainly pronounce, impressed with your web site. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related information ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Nice task.