Suddenly, Iran is aflame with protest

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Thedimon, Nov 19, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Richard Franks

    Richard Franks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2019
    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do Iran protests make any sense?
     
  2. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You say it is 70 percent that are loyal to tthe govt, that exercises authority over the iranians while western informstion is at odds with that stated reality .

    We are told the protests are more than 20 to 30 percent you referenced. And sugnificsnt numbers are upset over this regime's foreign ppolicy that is causing the sanctions that is painful on your non elites. So that is the kind of info that creates perception in America

    I tend to trust your info over what we are told.

    I figure that if iranians didnt want what their govt offers they would change it. That makes good sense.

    America wants to meddle outside of our borders as iran wants to meddle outside of their own.

    If only nations would mind their own business much of the killing wwould stop.

    Truth is humans just cant get along. That explains the war torn history of humanity.

    We have become resigned to that reality.
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran is a lot more secularized than you might imagine. And some of the lies about Iran try to cover up this fact.

    Secularization, in the sense that I believe in (as opposed to westernization or secularist dogma), is a process where the 'quest for truth' and understanding of reality is determined by reason and scientific methodology, not dogma or scripture. There are dogmatic aspects, some influenced by 'scripture' most by past religious and/or cultural dogma, which play too large a role in certain things in Iran. (That is the case in the US as well, but...). But, overall, Iran's own cultural, philosophical and even religious traditions favor rational, non-dogmatic, inquiry over its opposite and our institutions (political and otherwise) aren't the kind that would allow merely dogmatic solutions to persist for too long.
    I assume you meant "Iranians". I know that is just a slip of the tongue but I would caution you and others from imagining you know enough about Iran to decide what is best for it (even if you had such good intentions). There are plenty of Iranians of all stripes, many teaching at the best universities in the world including in the US and many others in Iran itself, and these people along with the people of Iran more generally should be fighting their own fights without foreign intervention. A foreign intervention that carries foreign agendas in opposite to what Iranians want. The main foreign agenda is, indeed, the opposite of the most united Iranian wish: for Iran to have a military second to none that can threaten it, to have an economy as successful and as prosperous as any and one that is self-sufficient. And for Iran to play its historic role in the region. This agenda of IRAN is opposed, regardless of rhetoric, by all western powers.

    I am personally opposed to any 'separation of religion from state' solution in Iran, but am in favor of 'secularization' generally in the context of the division that gave this term meaning in western civilization history. However, your 'wish' for Iran is ultimately simply neither here or there. If Iran is a successful enough society, it can utilize well wishes and withstand evil ones. And if it isn't, it will fail and ultimately find itself succumbing to the ill wishers around it.
    The Idea of "West" arose in juxtaposition of IRAN, going back to the Greco-Persian wars and then Alexander's conquest of the "Persian empire". This idea than found greater resonance with the Roman-Persian wars, where Rome saw itself as the legitimate heirs of "Alexander" (and his conquests in IRAN) and Iran's rulers saw themselves as legitimate heirs of the Achaemenid dynasty of Cyrus and Darius. And legitimate rulers of the areas ruled by them. For a thousand years, that division underpinned many wars between IRAN and the West (including the Greco-Persian and then for 800 years the Roman-Persian wars) and had lasting influence on perceptions, giving rise to a lot of propaganda and mythology which influences attitudes and views about the region to this day. The object of the propaganda changed as the Middle East became "Muslim" and the West became "Christian".

    In the 7th century, when Islam arose in the Arabia, the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula fell outside this division politically, although they were influenced by aspects of it. The first Arab rulers who conquered the realm of IRAN and much of the Byzantine empire -- which at the time represented the "West" (albeit already influenced by the East) -- and the relatively short-lived Ummayad caliphate that ruled this newly conquered realm was mainly Arab. But the Ummayad caliphate was overthrown by a movement which started in IRAN which brought to power the Abbasid caliphate. A caliphate which was no longer so much Arab as representative of age-old Iranian traditions mixed with those of the "Semitic" world which Iran had influenced and often dominated for many centuries (and which had influence IRAN in return, even before Islam, as the realm of IRAN borrowed extensively from all civilizations around it and especially those of the ancient Near East -- Egyptian and Mesopotamian -- that it has come to rule over during the Achaemenid dynasty).

    Within this "East", the quest for IRAN to retain its historic place found expression in the Persian renaissance of the 9th-10th centuries and subsequently in the rise of Persianate societies that ruled the Muslim world even before the rise of the so-called "Gun Powder empires" in the Middle East. By the 16th century, with the rise of the "gun powder empires", the major Muslim powers of the time were all Persianate in culture and attitude: whether they ruled in the name of "Sunni orthodoxy" (e.g. the Ottomans who ruled the former Byzantine empire and its lands and were threatening IRAN's historic realm fighting Iran exactly over the territories the Byzantine empire had fought IRAN), whether they ruled in India (the Mughal empire) or elsewhere in Eurasia and Central Asia. Nonetheless, the division between IRAN and the rest of them persisted, as IRAN was also politically loyal to the ancient heritage of IRAN, with those ruling IRAN assuming the title of monarchs (Kings or King of Kings of IRAN) and explicitly considering themselves heirs of Iran's ancient realm. The Ottomans, by contrast, while being affected by the Persian historiography and mythology of the Shahnameh (Book of Kings), nonetheless justified their power as legitimate heirs of the Abassid caliphate (which while being Irano-Islamic culturally, and in administration, rested its political legitimacy on Sunni Islam and not IRAN and its traditions). At this time, the "West" (which had experienced a renaissance helped in no small measure by both the recovery of the heritage of ancient Greece by Islamic scholars but by the grossly under-emphasized contributions of Islamic scholars to almost every aspect of Western thought that emerged) was becoming militarily and economically more powerful and adventurous. The Age of Discovery, the commercial revolution, the Age of Enlightenment" and eventually the Industrial Revolution, allowed Western Civilization to become ascendants and eventually dominant. Of course, even up the 17th-18th century, the Ottoman empire still fought the "West' and Ottoman armies were kept from the Gates of Vienna was some difficulty. But by the 19th century, this Western ascendancy was undeniable and led to Westernization becoming the cultural manifestation of it among people who always search for the "superior" (economically and politically) culture to identify with.

    The political history of the Middle East in the 19th and 20th century is a history of Western colonial and neo-colonial interventions. While IRAN retained its nominal independence even at the height of the colonial period in European history, these neo-imperialist agendas had huge ramifications for Iran as well. The Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) that replaced the Qajar dynasty (1796-1925) in Iran was a dynasty that sought to 'westernize Iran" as a means to 'modernize it'. While its rulers wanted Iran to once again find its rightful place in history, and ideologically they affected 'westernized pseudo Iranian nationalism' (as opposed to the traditional Iranian patriotism and devotion to the idea of IRAN), ultimately the flag of the "West" ruled over the IRAN. The Iranian revolution rejected that flag. It didn't reject modernity. It didn't reject enlightenment. The opposite.

    Historically, while the contours of Iranian ambitions are focused on the Middle East broadly and on IRAN specifically, the West has been imperialist. That was the case at the time of Rome (where Rome thought it had a right to conquer IRAN as heirs of Alexander). It was true once the West became powerful enough following the 18th century and the rise of European colonial empires. It is true today. The real explanation for this 'imperialist' agenda of the West generally is complicated. Marxist-Leninist theories of "Imperialism" captured (if at all) minor aspects of it. The story is a lot more involved. At the moment, the greatest driving force for this imperialism is America and the implantation of the "neoconservative" agenda from the marriage of the pro-Israel lobby and "Christian evangelicals" and the military industrial lobby. But even though this incantation of Western imperialism is sharp and seeks complete domination militarily and politically before achieving any cultural domination, while others sought economic, cultural, political and then military and geopolitical domination, that quest to dominate the Middle East is age-old and remains an agenda of the West.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
    Margot2 likes this.
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The protests in Iran were, initially, the product of a combination of issues with a domestic focus. They were then manipulated and infiltrated by US/Israel/Saudi agendas and motivated by some who are influenced by larger 'western' agendas. They are now "past" only in the sense that this episode and battle in the larger war against IRAN was put down. The war against IRAN continues and there will be other battles to come.
     
  5. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    14,150
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See....it's the "secular" youth that you once posted pictures of here that are "influenced by larger 'western' agendas", they are fine when they shut up but become Zionist agents when they risk their lives in protest against the regime..., how do you manipulate ppl to protest against violent dictatorship when no press and no human rights are on the scene to give some cover ?
     
    Tim15856 and Pisa like this.
  6. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    14,150
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How ? how do you change gov when you are told what parties you are allowed to vote for ? there can never be a Trump-like candidate in Iran, all have to accept the "revolution" to begin with, if the ppl of Iran - or Syria (Baath party) - ever wanted a real fundamental change - not just to pick the color of your head cover - than it would have to be with such protest if not revolution,

    That said I agree its an Iranian internal affair...
     
    Tim15856 and zer0lis like this.
  7. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Send Jimmy Carter over there. He's the moron who put the Ayatollah in power. He'll "fix" everything, like he did when he brokered a $5 billion giveaway to North Korea for their "promise" not to make any more nuclear bombs. He was America's worst president until BozoBama pulled the wool over American sheep. I paid a professional artist to create this picture, planning to make men's wristwatches with this on the face. Mickey Mouse wears a BozoBama watch.

    upload_2019-11-28_7-41-49.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
    Tim15856 likes this.
  8. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ha ha ha ha. Yes, that's why "progressive" Jimmy Carter aided a coup to oust the "progressive" Shah, America's friend, and put in place his radical Muslim Mullahs. You Leftists are hoots in everything you say and do. Now put your Antifa gear on and go beat some MAGA hat wearer over the head with a steel bar, "Progressive" (sick).
     
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rumsfeld sold nuclear to NK.. not Carter.
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The project to cause problems Iran isn't just focused on Iran, but it has long involved many other states in the region. In Syria, we had the Syrian civil war and the efforts to unseat Assad for his refusal to break ties with Iran and Hezbollah. We had all sorts of machinations against Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the country is being pushed towards further political turmoil. In Iraq, after the Iraqi people voted successively for the"Iranian list" over the "US list", despite being under US occupation and being exposed non-stop to US propaganda against Iran, the US eventually went through its 'redirection' and began directing Sunni groups against pro Iranian groups in Iraq. That all eventually led to ISIS...Now, the "Iraqi people" who can vote for whoever they like and have elected the people in power in Iraq today under a US sponsored constitution, have decided to 'rise up' against their government and for some reason have decided that they have found the culprit for their problems: Iran! Or, at least, that is the line the enemies of Iran like to feed people. Those behind these acts, and those who are steering legitimate issues that may exist in any society towards violence and anti-Iran agendas, are known to Iran. No need for me to convince anyone here.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/v...n-consulate-amid-growing-unrest-in-iraq-video
    Iraq
    Protesters set fire to Iranian consulate amid growing unrest in Iraq – video
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    p.s.
    It is just so strange that when the "people of Iran", the "people of Iraq", the "people of Lebanon" or the "people of Syria" speak their voice through the ballot box, they speak in such a different way than when they speak when they are talking through "violence", '"terrorism", "vandalism" etc. When they are speaking using the latter avenues of "speech", the same people seem to become so "fed up" with "Iran's regional policies". But when they to and vote, they seem to speak a completely different tune!:)
     
  12. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post is evidence that partisanship is alive and well. You're also a picture perfect candidate for removal of partisan blinders.

    I'm a Trump supporter. Even voted for him. If you don't believe me feel free to look through my posting history. You'll see that I defend him regularly. Instead of just reacting to something that you obviously have no clue about why not do some studying instead of just assuming that the person that you're talking to is <insert whatever group you hate here> and being automatically derisive of what they say.
     
  13. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lies by people who dislike the Iranian government?
    That's it.
    Some places in America are heavily influenced by organized religion. Fortunately, unlike Iran, the central government is secular.
    Hence the conflict between the educated city folk and the religious types.
    I told you what I think liberals here are saying. My views differ from theirs.
    Not in dispute from me.
    No economy can be self-sufficient. I take it the purpose of a strong military is to protect Iranian sovereignty.
    Meaning what? Projecting Iranian power in nearby countries? Opposing Israel? What?
    Why do you think they oppose Iranian ambitions?
    I assume you hold that clerics should be able to overrule the people?
    The West won. It's over. Ancient cultures like China and Iran have adapted. There is no way forward for any country outside the fact-based, scientific model.
    They did it because they could. The West was so much more powerful than the rest of the world that ancient cultures, including Iran, adapted to western hegemony.
    Unfortunately, the political force resisting the Shah wasn't liberal democracy, but the strongest unifying force that could resist in a police state--organized religion. Other societies throwing off western dominance have resisted with invented belief systems (communism in China, for instance) and religion (India, Arabia).
    Powerful societies tend to be either imperialist or, more rarely, isolationist. Iran is today flexing its imperialist muscle in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and beyond.
    Marxism, and especially Marxism-Leninism, are BS. They served a purpose in resisting western imperialism, but they're an unsatisfactory basis for organizing society. Russia and China have abandoned collectivized production for the simple reason that it doesn't work.
    These groups aren't the reason the U.S. is embracing imperialism. China, btw, is at least as imperialist as this country.
    I think you're overblowing the impact of Western imperialism and underplaying the threat (not mentioning it at all) of China and Russia. Today is a long way from 1980.
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, but more than just that. This is a long story and while it might illuminating and telling with regard to certain issues being discussed, it is one I prefer to skip over for now.
    There are many ways to peel an orange. The important thing isn't labels such as 'secular' or 'religious' but what they entail?

    To be clear, I have no issues with America's constitutional design. The framers of the US constitution were wise men and the compromises they reached (other than on the issue of slavery and the implicit recognition of it in their text) to establish America's constitutional system were generally coherent and well thought out. The civil war amendments remedied the few major problems that still existed in the system that had been devised. And America's constitutional history, some detours aside, reflects the kind of notions which basically advanced an enlightened approach to legal issues. Of course, the US has its own bevy of Platonic guardians, with the Federal Judiciary and the US Supreme Court at its helm. An institution that oversees all other institutions in America through its power of judicial review, allowing it to declare the acts of other (more representative or democratic) institutions in American government as "unconstitutional". These American justices and judges aren't elected by the people and have life tenure. While they don't have, in Madison's words, the power over the 'sword or the purse', they fulfill a function not all that different than the Platonic Guardians in Iran's system. I know you imagine there is a huge difference: that Iran's Platonic guardians are supposed to make society live up to the dictates of 'scripture' and religious dogma, while your Platonic guardians are supposed to enforce a secular document of much more recent vintage and far more enlightened provisions than what may be found in religious scriptures. But while there are differences, they aren't as much as you imagine. Iran's religious tradition isn't much about enforcing dogma and scripture. It is about trying to discover 'truths' about religion from centuries of jurisprudential and philosophical thought which has sought to marginalize the role of scripture and elevate the role of reason. I actually like to discuss this issue with you in greater depth, but for now let me also say this:

    Any ideology that is 'dogmatic' (as opposed to one that is dynamic and flexible), which views knowledge as one that is merely received (as opposed to one which is added to and evolves in a process where falsehoods are drawn out and stricken down at each turn), which suspends rational thinking in favor of recitation and copying (whether of scripture of any other received dogma of theology or any other ideology), which elevates form (shapes) over substance (essence), and which prevents or hinders the evolution of thinking in addressing material issues in a manner that is most conducive to not only the public good but also the Quest for Truth, is bad in my eyes. The fact that many religious traditions included aspects of such dogmatic thinking is no greater indictment on religion than any other ideology (and there are plenty that are 'secular' that fit this bill too) that are or were equally troubling in this regard.

    In the meantime, here is a brief introduction to Iran's religious and jurisprudential thought, which is quite distinguishable (despite many flaws and dogmatic aspects) from what you might imagine. Especially when these jurisprudential scholars and philosophers are now faced with real issues of governing a society and aren't merely sitting on the sidelines with no responsibility to insist on dogma that doesn't work and which causes problems for not only the society they want to lead, but also ultimately their own ability to lead and rule that society.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja'fari_jurisprudence
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  15. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unlike you, I think there are serious flaws in the way the U.S. government works.
    The Justices can be removed by Congress. Who removes the clerics in Iran?
    The operation of government is subject to the Supreme Leader whose office is overseen by a council he appoints. U.S. Supreme Court Justices can be removed by Congress.
    Organized religion with it's "books" is nonsense. There are no guiding truths to be discovered by anyone. You may accept 'rule by cleric' for Iran, and I don't have any standing to speak for even a single Iranian, but I could never support a system in any country I might live in with anyone having the power of Iran's Supreme Leader.
    Can you defend religious oversight of a democratic government?
    Religion is what it is. We're the ones who misuse it.
    If Iran wants to be part of the world economy--get investment and technology from the world--it will have to be a better place to live for foreigners who bring and then manage and support technology.
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In Iran's constitutional system, the "Supreme Leader" is appointed by the "Assembly of Experts". The "Assembly of Experts" is composed of "experts" elected directly by the people every 8 years, with the power to supervise the works of and, if necessary, remove the "Supreme Leader". While the "theoretical issue" we are discussing isn't really about how the system may or may not work in Iran, or any changes or reforms that might accomplish its design better, you should know that the last elections to the Assembly of Experts in 2016 saw clerics affiliated with so-called "reformists" win many if not most of the seats to the Assembly.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iranian_Assembly_of_Experts_election

    As for our 'clerics' more generally, Iran's clerical institution (as opposed to the officials described above) and clerics would need to be compared to the institutions that develop, train and accredit your lawyers who become judges. (To be sure, Iran also has a westernized bar composed of lawyers and judges who have graduated from secular universities, but here I want to talk about my analogy and focus on our 'clerics'). And while I think the training of America's best lawyers who 'don the rob' and become jurists has certain qualities which are superior to the training of even Iran's best clerics (since in my view the clerical establishment in Iran has failed to keep up with the times in choosing its students, training them, and admitting its members and America's law schools do a better job in this regard), the similarities are there. Indeed, the method of education in both follows the "Socratic method" and that doesn't end the similarities! As someone who attended college and law school in the US, and who practiced in the America, I can draw out the similarities (and difference) for you if you wish. But in Iran's system which you are less familiar with, the graduates of Iran's seminaries who attain the 'rank' of 'mujtahid' (entitling them to independent judgment) have to finish an advanced curriculum and then write their dissertation and be accepted as scholars by the consensus of existing scholars. Once they become "mujtahid", they have near absolute "academic freedom", with the people indirectly choosing who among them should be elevated as their power and prestige from then on is dependent in large measure on the number of adherent who pick them as their "source of emulation".

    Anyway, I can open up this subject further for you if I find you interested enough.
    You are wrong about Iran's system. I gave you the contours of how that system works above.
    In some sense you may be right. I certainly am not "religious' in the sense you suggest. Certainly not someone who believes any 'truths' are found in any scripture or books, any more than any truths are found in any legal texts or books from any secular traditions. They all represent prescriptions on how to best govern issues in society by mortals and based on the intellect and imagination of mortals as well as all their flaws and more. The label you give to your "ideology" doesn't change that: you could give it a secular label or a religious one, ultimately that is how it works. After all, while these Western philosophers weren't really the first discover these 'truths', it is still the case (as Descartes had discovered) that "I think, therefore I am" pretty much shows the extent of knowledge one can derive from 'reason' and that David Hume's axiom can never be proven wrong despite some heroic efforts to the contrary by so-called Kantian and neo-Kantians: that "you can't derive an ought from an is" (meaning how things should be can never be established based on how things are using simply reason).

    All that said, people who appear convinced of their atheism and who are over the top with their anti-theism take things too far too. The skepticism that develops even in young minds is healthy. And certainly "organized religion" in what you have in mind has certainly had the flaws and more of the other so-called 'secular" organized institutions in history. Human beings are evolving and as long as they don't become "dogmatic" in the manner I described in my earlier message, and allow reason and the scientific method which we both seem to agree on with its "falsification principle" to guide them, and maintain a healthy love and curiosity for knowledge for its own sake even beyond just the 'material advantages' it might bestow, I think they will find better answers each time as they evolve individually and as societies.
    I didn't draft Iran's constitution. If I was drafting it myself, I would change certain aspects when it comes to the powers (and limitations of powers) invested to Iran's "Supreme Leader". But philosophically, I believe the best system is one that includes both 'democratic institutions' that reflect and nurture the consent of the governed and their ultimate oversight over their rulers, and "Platonic institutions" where a meritocracy is engaged in developing doctrines to help and oversee the work of the 'democratic institutions'. In Iran's case, in particular, that would best fit with the needs of Iranian society and the ideology of IRAN over several millennia of history and its search for the concept of a "just king". Indeed, Plato's Republic and his ideas about justice, about the distinction between 'form" and 'substance', and his idea of the ideal Republic are in many ways a fusion of ancient Iranian and Greek traditions.
    Intellectually and philosophically, no ideology whether secular or religious can be "justified" or "defended" through reason, but my ideology when it comes the best system of government is one that I have alluded to. In this regard, don't get me wrong: Iran is a work in progress! All of us are.

    Iran is actually already a rather fine (even excellent) place for foreigners to visit and to live and those who visit Iran and live there will tell you that. It is not at all what you imagine it to be despite its flaws. But until the 'war on IRAN" is waging, it will never the place it could be. And real foreign investment (whose utility for Iran can be debated) is ultimately not going to come to Iran until and unless that war is settled one way or another.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the meantime, for anyone who still is clueless enough to think that the 'war on IRAN' has anything to do with a desire to see 'democratic rule of law' in the region, let me mention that besides the fact that the example of Saudi Arabia and many other American allies in the region should already reveal that lie, the fact is that the US government is right now engaged (as part of its 'war on IRAN') in a war against the most democratically elected governments elsewhere in the region.

    I mean: who oversaw the drafting of the constitution of Iraq? It was the Americans. And no one can claim with a straight face that the "Iraqi people" don't have the right to oust anyone from power through the ballot box if sufficient numbers choose to employ that method. Yet, right now, an Iraqi prime minister who held his power by virtue of the vote of a democratically elected parliament in Iraq, is being ousted from power (not by votes or ballots) but by riots! Riots which have been steered in anti-Iran direction, and which have taken aim (supposedly on behalf of the 'people of Iraq' -- the ones who elected these representatives and could elect other ones if they so chose) at an Iraqi prime minster (who is being forced to resign by these riots) in large part because he was seen as "too close to Iran"!

    And the same is taking place in practically the only other Arab country in the region with genuine democratic institutions, namely Lebanon! While Lebanon's 'democracy' actually uses a sectarian formula which significantly reduces the clout of the Shia political parties closest to Iran, the current president and government include many who are deemed too close to Hezbollah. The attempt to oust them, not by the ballot box, but through riots and protests is underway in Lebanon too.

    In the meantime, such beacons of democracy and rule of law in the region, such as the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the dictatorship in Bahrain, and many other monarchies and such across the region, are fully supported by the US. And enjoy the "foreign investments", the "military assistance", and other things some here imagine is tied to how 'democratic' a country is in the region.

    As for the lies, every narrative you read about events in the region proceed on lies. Even when those narratives are presented by more liberal papers, such as the Guardian or Independent. Otherwise, does it really take a genius to understand that (a) all governments everywhere can be shown to have corruption and other issues; and (b) that people who have the right to vote and unseat their governments through the ballot box, don't need to riot and use violence to achieve their aims if they can rally enough support for their cause to genuinely speak for the 'people' they claim to speak for?
    https://apnews.com/13c1f4d0ffdd4908ba340abf9631a3cb
    Protests in Iraq reveal a long-simmering anger at Iran
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/105246
    Iraq: UN ‘deeply concerned’ at continued protester deaths
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/29/iraq-pm-resign-protests-abdul-mahdi-al-sistani
    Iraqi PM says he will resign after weeks of violent protests
    Adel Abdul Mahdi bows to pressure following 50 deaths in latest security crackdown
     
  18. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it possible or likely the Assembly of Experts will relinquish control and/or the Supreme Leader will become a moral voice without institutional power?

    The formal oppression of people people who aren't Muslims, or Muslims who reject Islam, is inconsistent with human dignity. The same goes for the oppression of women. Now, that's for me--Iranians can live as they please.
    Since I could never personally support a political structure dominated by religious dogma, no matter how rationally presented, I don't see much value to society in professionalizing organized religion. IMO, the Catholic Church has been a negative example of professionalizing religion.
    Why do you think I perceived Iran's system as significantly different from your description? I'm not surprised religion would be professionalized in a country with a lot of higher education.
    So far, so good; however, religion assumes important facts not on evidence and is therefore problematic as a basis for organizing society.
    Religious beliefs are nothing more than assertions that must be supported by evidence like any other claim.
    Where do you shoehorn into governance the Islamic oppression of women, nonbelievers, Muslims rejecting Islam, and so on?
    Not sure I agree.
    Visit, perhaps. Work? Rather than the EU, Canada, Australia, UK, USA, Japan, Korea ... no.
    It won't come in enough force until Iran adopts a more liberal culture.
     
  19. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Control of what?

    The 'Assembly of Experts' has very limited functions and meets rarely and doesn't do much even when it does meet! Its primary function comes into play when there is a vacancy in the office of the Supreme Leader, as this is the institution that will then choose the next "Supreme Leader" (the actual title is "Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution"). Otherwise, its only other function is akin to the impeachment function of the Congress viz a viz the US president: in case of any malfeasance or failure by the Supreme Leader to fulfill his constitutional duties properly, the Assembly of Experts can consider such acts of malfeasance and remove the Supreme Leader from his position. This "impeachment" like authority of the Assembly of Experts has never been used in the 40 years that have marked Iran's current constitutional system of government.

    Those who favor some checks on the power of the Supreme Leader are generally the last to want the Assembly of Experts to "relinquish' any of its authority! If anything, they might favor the assembly to exercise its authority more vigorously!

    Any change in the actual powers of the Supreme Leader require amendments to Iran's constitution. The amendment process doesn't involve the Assembly of Experts.

    While I personally favor many amendments and reforms as it relates to the powers and limitation on powers of the Supreme Leader, I am fundamentally opposed to attempts to get rid of the institution altogether or turn its authority merely into one that is symbolic. There are legitimate, and valuable functions, served by this institution, including in ensuring a democratic system not overtaken by whoever comes to power and becomes "President" for life! And there is more to it than that.
    I prefer to engage you here in an intellectual debate, as opposed to one that is invariably colored by polemics and misrepresentations and falsehoods about Iran. While Iran has its faults and quite a few of them, it is basically nothing like what it is represented to be in the western media narratives. Including on the subjects you allude to.
    I am opposed to 'dogma' of any kind (whether labeled 'secular' or 'religious') dominating the political and intellectual structures of any society. There is a good bit of dogma in your thinking, but you aren't aware of it as you have been indoctrinated in the dogma and believe the truths you believe in are self-evident! In many cases, in fact in most cases, most people (except to some extent properly trained philosophers, jurists, and theoreticians of the philosophy of science, etc) aren't even aware of the 'dogma' that underpins their belief systems. Whether secular or religious.
    I am not here to write a brief for the Catholic Church but the main distinctions (and similarities) between the Catholic Church and the mythology that underpins their base of power and the institution of Velayat Faqih which underpins Iran's current system of government is as follows:

    1- The first important distinction: Under Shia jurisprudential thought, and even in Ayatollah Khomeini's view of the institution of Velayat Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), this Shia "Pope" is not "infallible". In fact, in Shia jurisprudence, once you attain the rank of "Mujtahid" (e.g., Ayatollah), your view of right/wrong and what constitutes proper Islamic thought is theoretically as valid as the view of any other Mujtahid. It is up to each individual to choose his/her "source of emulation" and he/she can choose between a large number of such people to guide their individual behavior. In this regard, among several hundred if not more clerics who have attained the scholarly rank of "Ayatollah", there are dozens (approximately 60) who are considered "Grand Ayatollahs" by virtue of the number of people who have chosen them as their "source of emulation".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_clergy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ayatollahs

    2- Another main distinction: In Iran's system, the Supreme Leader's main function is secular, not religious, even if that secular function is meant in part to ensure that the constitutional system retains its "religious" character and remains faithful to the "ideology" of the revolution. Of course, the fact that the Supreme Leader is also a "Mujtahid" (one with secular power) may add greater' weight to even his 'religious edicts" in practice, but in reality, those religious edicts alone are no more or less binding (as a personal religious obligation) than any edict by any other "Ayatollah". Instead, their binding element relates to its secular role in the constitutionally invested powers of the Supreme Leader. A role that fundamentally involves two set of things: one, his appointment powers; and secondly, the fact that all important decisions of state in Iran ultimately require the consent of the Supreme Leader to be valid and binding.

    3- A similarity: Right beneath the very top of the clerical establishment, before someone has attained the right to "independent judgment" on religious matters, like the Catholic Church and unlike in Sunni Islam, there is a Shia clerical hierarchy and a methodology in picking who has been properly educated to become a "Mujtahid". This hierarchical aspect -- if employed properly -- can help develop a meritocracy as opposed to having a system where your scholars (and their prescriptions on what is best for society) are picked by a popularity contest (which inevitably becomes a contest also of who has more power or is able to attract powerful vested interests to propagate and market his/her ideas). In this, it is similar to the Catholic Church and in this regard, it enjoys the superiority that the Catholic priesthood enjoy over their protestant type counterparts which inevitably sees some of the most dogmatic voices trying to interpret scripture literally gain prominence as you see with the evangelical fundamentalist Christians in America.
    (But beyond the religious tag or label, it is also similar to say the process for training and then admitting lawyers who become jurists in America who are picked to serve on the bench).
    I will leave you to reflect on your own on the 'significance' in the difference between our respective narratives on the institution we are discussing. But one point of clarification: the clerical establishment in Iran and its contours arose long before any widespread education, much less 'higher education' anywhere including in Iran. Of course, it is evolving and that evolution will reflect, among other things, what you allude to.
    By the standard of what you consider being "religious", I am definitely not religious! Our differences, instead, are as follows:

    1- While there might be more "enlightened" ideologies than the ones propagated under religious labels, and even if these ideologies included ones which purported to be purely "secular", ultimately all ideologies proceed on the same basis as you describe religion, namely "assuming important facts not on evidence".

    Remember these two axioms of philosophical thought and search for their complete import: "I think, therefore I am" as representing basically the extent knowledge based on reason can be verified. And "you cannot derive an ought from an is" as an expression of the inability to project any legal, moral or any prescriptive code, based on what exists using reason.

    The enlightenment in the West produced attempts by people who thought rational thought could develop into a full scale moral code. Those attempts underpinned many utilitarian philosophies and the legal codes influenced by them such as the Napoleonic Code. Even if it was possible to adduce laws based on some 'rational exercise" in the way you can adduce mathematical facts (and it is not), you still would be left with an important assumption that not everyone would have to agree with: the greatest good or utility for society as a whole, is what needs to underpin the laws and rights and wrongs in society. There is no "reason" that proves this must be.

    You also had, in opposite of this utilitarian tradition, various forms of "natural law" doctrines emerge which proceeded under a different methodology, employing a contractual approach and imagining the 'state of nature' and using reason to develop their guiding principles. The most rationally developed 'natural law' doctrine is the one that was espoused by Rawles in this "Theory of Justice". You might find his attempt commendable and enlightening, but I doubt he would insist he has finally "proven" that there are such things as natural laws based on reason!

    2- You imagine that just because something takes a "religious label" it necessarily must employ a methodology that is different than the one espoused by any of the ideologies you might support. You can be a "utilitarian", a "libertarian", someone who believes in "natural law" or believes in anything else, and yet choose to have a theistic belief that there is more to life than the material world and our selfish personal interests and instincts. Otherwise, when it comes to the substantive theology (as opposed to certain procedural aspects which I find worthwhile in Iran's institutions) associated with any of the major religious ideologies in Islam, Christianity or Judaism, I am certainly not interested in any of them to help me find my "truths".
    I agree.
    Some of what you allude to may have factual basis, but you need to clarify exactly the point you want to discuss and make sure we both agree on the facts first! We can't have a rational discussion which proceeds on the assumption "I beat my wife" and then try to find out why I do so?:)

    I am as much against "Islam" as you or anyone else here, if "Islam" means the things you imagine it to mean. To best understand Iran's intellectual history, "Islam" became a "Label" we got stuck with because of the Arab invasion. The rest of our intellectual history was to find ways to give this label our own definition and meaning, which is what underpins Iran's Shia jurisprudential and philosophical thought. There are dogmatic elements in this exercise of ours for sure. There are also culturally regressive or backward practices which are somehow encouraged still by some of this dogma. But Iran is fundamentally not the society you imagine it to be.
     
  20. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unchecked control of the extremely powerful Supreme Leader position.
    We have a president elected by the people every four years while you have a leader chosen by a small group of men whose participation must be approved by a body appointed by the leader himself. Our system has many problems, but the leader here must renew his (or her) authority by vote of the people every four years.
    Could they actually get rid of Khamenei? I wonder.
    Why make assumptions about people you don't know?

    For anyone reading along, I make no apologies for my comments about Iran or its government. I suggest you read...

    Note where Iran stands on the rule of law...

    Government effectiveness...

    Control of corruption...

    Civil liberties...


    As I said, "Iranians can live as they please."
    Lawyers aren't smarter than everyone else. :(
    This makes the Supreme Leader more like an ancient king.
    This country would be better off if it rejected outright any argument that uses religious dogma as support. I suspect Iran would likewise benefit.
    Yes...? All ideologies make assumptions. Religions often assert their assumptions as revealed truths not subject to question.
    You know what I imagine, do you? :rolleyes:
    I don't have to imagine this: https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf
     
  21. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran has a president elected every 4 years by the people as well.

    I should have made my impeachment analogy (which was an analogy) to the impeachment powers of the Congress viz a viz Supreme Court justices. My bad.
    To be precise, by an Assembly of Experts elected directly by the people.
    First, the "Supreme Leader" who is being appointed when there is a vacancy in the office isn't the former one that played an indirect role in 'vetting' candidates to the Assembly of Experts.
    Second, the vetting of candidates in Iran is a lot more complicated than the simple and propaganda narratives you are exposed to. The vetting is undertaken by the Guardians Council, half of whose members are in part appointed by the Supreme Leader and the other half from a list that has input of appointees of the Supreme Leader but which is picked by an elected parliament.
    The vetting (while a power that can be abused and should be regulated better in Iran) isn't as arbitrary as you imagine or as is presented in simplified polemical narratives about Iran. That is why many people who are vocal critics and opponents/rivals of the Supreme Leader are regularly approved and make up the groups associated with camps which are in the majority in various institutions in Iran who are known to oppose some of the powers of the Supreme Leader, including in the Assembly of Experts. If the vetting is done arbitrarily in a manner that leaves out people who are stricken for legally valid reason based on Iran's constitutional standards and the overall views in society, you would see a huge drop in participation rates in Iran's elections. As is the case now, Iran's elections bring out greater participation and produce more rancorous and lively debates and more fiercely contested contests than what you have in the US which (besides a few instances, such as with Trump) ordinarily involves contests between complete 'establishment' candidates. Candidates who typically are arguing about very marginal issues (such as a few percentage points highers or lower tax rates or minor tactical differences on how to implement the embedded foreign policy agendas and other polices which reflect ultimately the influence of vested special interests which indirectly vet your candidates).

    Ultimately, unless you had a small enough society where everyone could genuinely know all candidates and become one knowable to the rest of society without the need to rely on special interests, the realistic choices offered to people in any representative democracy are limited by one devise or another. It is done in the US by political parties, by their contributors, and by the associated and affiliated media and special interest groups. Then these respective candidates are offered to the people to vet further as the nominees of the two major parties. And the people then choose between them.

    The issue that Iran's system versus the one in the US asks is this: who do you want to do the vetting? Special interests groups and others behind the scenes which determine campaign contributions, fund media and think tanks and so-called experts, or a group that does the vetting openly based on certain standards which people can openly judge as well and react to? Neither system right now is perfect in terms of this vetting and while America's constitutional design (to me) is well thought out, its political system has been infested with corruption and needs huge reforms. Something that a demagogue such as Trump has abused to gain the presidency and to help his own even more obviously corrupt interests.
    Iran has a president too and the functions of Iran's Supreme Leader are best compared to the functions of the US Supreme Court, not the US president. The real function of the Supreme Leader in Iran is not 'executive' but to provide something akin to 'judicial guidance' and to vest the decisions of the elected branched with the imprimatur of legitimacy based on Iran's own 'constitutional tradition' (both the written and unwritten constitution that stretches back to Iran's development of its Shia jurisprudential heritage as well as the 'ideology' of Iran's revolution, most specifically its insistence that Iran be 'independent' and reject foreign western control and obvious westernization).
    The authority has not been exercised, but the answer in theory and legally is yes. But with similar difficulties as involved in Congress impeaching say all the justices of the Supreme Court at once.
    I made my assumptions based on what I had read, confirmed by the sources you are now quoting. If you want to understand Iran's system through those sources (which I submit to you aren't disinterested in merely explaining but are trying to further what is ultimately a propaganda narrative, instead of learning from them and hearing what I have to say, and trying to contest what I say based on reason and facts we both can agree (and we can agree on some of the facts underlying what I consider propaganda narratives in the West and not others), then we can have discussion. Otherwise, it becomes a case of you citing back to me the same sources as I already mentioned don't accurately represent Iran.

    In the meantime, you giving me western 'rankings' of civil liberties and rule of law in Iran is no more proof than me giving you Iranian rankings of civil liberties and rule of law in the US. Iran and the West are fundamentally in opposite political, geopolitical and ideological camps. The Western camp is the dominant camp right now and it reached its present dominant position because it did certain things right, allowing it to do a lot of other things which I don't consider right. The Iranian camp fell behind, then became a sheepish follower of the Western camp, not necessarily of its best attributes but those that could be copied most easily. It is now, as part of a rather recent experiment, trying to take the best of its own and western traditions, and come up with its own experiment in self-government. It has a lot of enemies who will try to disrupt that experiment and as I have suggested, if Iran isn't able to have a system and produce answers that can withstand the efforts of those enemies, it will fail.
    The office of the Supreme Leader is born out of Ayatollah Khomeini's concept of "Velayat Faqih" (Guardianship of the Jurist) which was enshrined in Iran's constitution after the revolution. The concept is justified based on Ayatollah Khomeini's interpretation of Shia jurisprudence and accepted by many (but not all) Shia jurisprudential experts (Ayatollahs). While formally those concepts don't have anything to do with "kingship" and Iran's revolution was a revolution to overthrow the age-old institution of monarchy in Iran (an institution that goes back to the beginnings of Iranian history), the actual forces which are represented in those Shia traditions are actually an expression of age-old Iranian ideology about legitimate power belonging to a wise, just, king. A philosopher king and concepts which you can find in Plato's Republic as well.
    I like society to reject 'dogma' of all kind, but at the end of the day, all societies need to be build their structures (political, economic and otherwise) based on dogma. That is just unavoidable. The issue is to make sure the dogma are kept flexible, dynamic, and capable of evolution and change overtime to meet new challenges and better deal with old ones based on the latest thinking and consensus on the right answers to these issues.
    Those religious traditions which rely on 'revealed' truths not subject to question (including aspects of the same in Iran), I reject as much (if not more) than you do. What I have suggested to you is that while Iran has some elements within its ideology that fit that bill, its philosophical and juridical ideology (even its religious ideology) is fundamentally dynamic and flexible. Those aspects of which are kept as dogmatic are themselves under challenge within Iran's own philosophical and shia jurisprudential academies and forces and eventually the a reformation of those remaining dogmatic answers from within Iran's seminaries is the best answer for Iran. Not shedding its own (often very profound) traditions and copying the West in everything.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
  22. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Compared to some of what I consider 'gibberish' about Iran, this report tries to present its 'brief' against Iran using actual evidence and legal provisions. In that regard, the arguments it makes aren't entirely fallacious. But:

    1- The report is no more than something akin to a legal brief written to advance an agenda, namely rejection of Iran's system of governance and empowering those who are similarly inclined. As such, it will present even those things which have factual or legal basis, in a narrative that fits the agenda of its brief.

    An which involves giving greater protection, then voice, power, and influence, to those within Iran who, intrinsically and ideologically, aren't loyal to its actual "constitution" who happen to wish to carry out their disloyalty under various religious or secular labels, is itself something I consider improper when acted upon by any foreign institution with foreign interests. Iran's constitution, whatever its failings, was adopted by the overwhelming majority of the people of Iran. While I accept that every legal norm should be subject to rational challenge and debate, the fact that Iran has powerful (even dominating) foreign enemies who are actively working to undermine its government through various actions constituting blatant interference in Iran's domestic affairs supported by a host of sanctions, diplomatic measures, espionage activities, subversive terrorist activities, and even threats of military force, makes it hard to delineate boundaries for the kind of rational challenge I like to encourage and the kind of violent and subversive acts (including ones with foreign backing) which I don't.

    If I wanted to write a brief showing discrimination against those disloyal to the US constitution, and who worked directly or indirectly with Iran's government to advance that disloyalty, and discussed numerous legal provisions which (despite America's First Amendment protections) actually penalize people who associate with such groups as part of America's anti-terrorism and anti-Iran laws, I could write such a brief with a lot more cases of people being caught up in America's legal system as a result of such laws. Even people who have not committed any violent acts whatsoever. The basic point: all systems seek to protect themselves from those who are trying to do them harm!

    2- Because of the agenda, the brief presents parts of the facts and legal arguments but not its entirety. And, as such, it is ultimately misleading on some points. For instance, there are strict legal limits on the ability of the state to impose any of the offenses outlined in this 'brief'. A genuinely dispassionate and informed attempt at educating you on Iran's system and its actual laws, would have to mention those limitations. Some of which in effect totally negate the possibility of the punishments mentioned. For instance, the crimes of adultery or homosexuality is both de jure (legally) and de facto (in practice) next to impossible to prove in Iran based on Iranian legal standards. Every report which suggests otherwise, much less propaganda about this or that many people being actually punished for either crime, is a lie. Simple as that. This report doesn't state the lie directly, but when it mentions these provisions without saying the following, then the picture presented is false: a) Under Iranian law, no one can be convicted of homosexual conduct (sodomy) or adultery absent at least 2 male witnesses to the act of sodomy (even if for the lesser punishment of lashing) and 4 male witnesses to the act of sodomy or adultery for the greater punishments; b) Iranian law provides for strict and rather certain punishment for anyone who accuses another person of adultery or sodomy unless they have 2-4 witnesses to those acts, such that even if you have witnessed the adultery or sodomy yourself and want to accuse someone of it, and even if your account is backed up by another witness, you will be punished if you even make the accusation; c) Iranian practice is to treat these two morality offenses and the penal provisions at issue as a statement of 'morality" and not one that should be enforced, as embodied by both judicial directives as well as by the provisions in the law that prohibit any realistic manner in which these charges can even be brought (much less a conviction obtained from them).

    If Iran was the society that enforced these kind of laws, then these two reports below would or could be true. In Iran, you had hundreds of thousands of draft age men falsely claim they were homosexual to be able to gain the legal exemption provided for military service by those who are homosexual. To make such claims more difficult, Iran's military then required proof that the person claiming to be homosexual had also engaged in homosexual conduct. The exemptions are now still being granted, to thousands who offer such proof and admission. Are any of these people being prosecuted for either homosexuality or sodomy? As for adultery, lets say you are husband whose wife is suing you in court to collect "Mehriyeh" (a promise to pay the wife a sum of money, usually represented in gold coins in a number way above what most grooms can afford, agreed to at the time of marriage and payable on demand whenever the wife demands, whether in case of any divorce or before). Let say you have actually witnessed your wife cheating on you? Forget punishing the wife for "adultery": can you even bring up the accusation of adultery to somehow avoid paying Mehriyeh? No. If you insist on making such an accusation, unless you have a lot of witnesses to the adultery, you will be the one who will be prosecuted.

    Iran has a lot of faults and warts. Some of it are correctly suggested in the reports you might read. But the truth is a lot more complicated and there are plenty of truths in opposite on each of these points too.

    p.s.
    Here are reports that carry other briefs, but which will tell you some of the truth if you used your thinking that didn't simply follow the propaganda narratives:

    This report below by an Iranian LGBT advocacy group tries to argue about the discrimination and concerns of the gay community in Iran as it relates to the intrusive nature of military questioning of claims of homosexuality before exemptions are given and concerns about how the military exemption cards can be used by others (e.g. future employers) to discover sexual orientation of people. All valid concerns, but if you thought about the issue a little, you would understand that there is no way Iran is a society which penalizes homosexuality in the way it is presented in propaganda reports about the country. Otherwise, who would dare seek such exemptions in the first place? (Not one of these people have ever been prosecuted, despite proving and admitting to their homosexual conduct, based on being homosexual).

    http://6rang.org/english/2261
    Confessing to having same-sex relations is the new norm for military service exemptions in Iran
    ------------
    This report below by FOX tries to use the findings in a report by an organ affiliated to the Iranian parliament to argue how the regime's moral precepts are basically at odds with prevailing attitudes among young Iranians. This point has validity, but these statistics also point to another fact: Iran cannot be the society that some imagine it to be in any case and the practice of its laws aren't what some like to present either.
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/iranian-study-finds-singles-having-sex-recommends-temporary-marriages
    Iranian study finds singles having sex, recommends 'temporary' marriages
    The reason 17 percent identified as "homosexual" is because if you take a poll of young poll who are considering using that grounds as an exemption from compulsory service, you will see a far greater number make that claim than what is typically assumed to be the right percentage of homosexuals in a country (2-4%).
    _____________________
    I won't give my commentaries on these reports below but they should further add to the complicating picture of the reality in Iran. One is about the large number of Iranian men who languish in prison for failing to pay "mehriyeh" to their wives. The other about the growing trend (now an almost dominant one in big cities) for young couples to cohabitate without being married. These reports are presented for their own subtle propaganda purposes, but beneath the propaganda narratives they should tell you something about the actual facts and legal norms in Iran too.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30391593
    Can Iran 'control' its cohabiting couples?

    https://www.thenational.ae/world/iran-pre-nups-land-thousands-of-men-in-jail-1.81305
    ran pre-nups land thousands of men in jail
    The 'mehrieh' (affection) system, in which future husbands agree to pay a certain number of gold coins to the bride in the event of divorce, has left thousands languishing in Iranian jails and many more destitute.

    Recent reform of Iranian practice in this area include not jailing men who can't afford to pay the full mehriyeh and only reserving jail time for those who refuse to pay what is within their ability.

    https://tribune.com.pk/story/941017/no-more-jail-for-iranian-men-who-cant-pay-dowry/?amp=1
    https://www.dw.com/en/in-iran-grooms-to-escape-jail-over-dowry-debts/a-18658344
     
  23. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the people choosing the "Supreme Leader" are committed to maintaining Muslim hegemony.
    Ergo, the process of maintaining Muslim hegemony is thorough.
    There you go telling me what I think.
    Can Iranians get away from insisting, for example, the "Supreme Leader" be a Muslim?
    The U.S. has a serious problem with corporations buying elections.
    Both countries are running systems antithetical to the needs and wishes of the majority of voters and citizens. Vetting should be done by an electoral process that provides individuals an opportunity to fully participate in the selection and promotion of candidates.
    I don't think our political system is appropriate for a 21st Century nation state with a large population.
    Seems as though the real function is to make sure Shia Islam maintains control of society.
    More insults? I'm a peer-reviewed historian (Canadian economic history) and taught history for more than three decades. I spend more time outside the United States than I do living here. My wife and I travel at least a couple of months every year.
    Take a look at the International Federation for Human Rights. They're not just a western stalking horse.
    What political camp are you in? Russia? China? Who shares your ideology?
    It looks a lot like a theocracy to me.
    If Iranians don't make Iran a better place to live and/or do business for foreigners, Iran will struggle because it will have difficulty attracting needed foreign capital and technology.
    Why build a society based on religious dogma if you have a choice?
    Traditions which make women second class citizens.
    And why I asked if you thought Iran could evolve to a society where the legislature is sovereign. It's happened in most western countries where even a hundred years ago the Church had a great deal of influence.
    If such dissent is not repressed, it will eventually triumph.
     
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will respond quickly with similar one-liners, but will then post a message to expand on some of the issues that ultimately divides us.

    More accurately, committed to maintaining Iranian, Shia, Islamic hegemony.
    Iranian shia Islamic hegemony.
    Based on what you had posted, which said that members of the Assembly of Experts were chosen by Iran's Supreme Leader, not based on any a priori assumptions.
    No. All constitutional systems require that their highest officers be loyal to their 'constitution'. The Supreme Leader needs to be Iranian, and a Shia Muslim theologian. The institution is there to serve a purpose (which beneath the ideological dogma, reflects Iran's age old quest for giving definition to its concept of a "Just King" which when combined with institutions of representative democracy, can produce a good system actually) and that purpose wouldn't be served at all if someone who wasn't going to be trained in that methodology and committed to it was allowed to be come Supreme Leader.
    In any large, so-called 'representative democracy', the inordinate power of special vested interest groups, including specially those with inordinate economic clout and power, that becomes inevitable. That is a function, in part, of the fact that we can't know all people who aspire to office and ultimately get to know candidates based on "marketing" (which requires money).
    Both systems have the seeds, actually, of the best way to structure the institutions of government in a society. And both contain serious corruptions and other defects that need to be remedied.
    In part, yes, which is why, first, you must thoroughly understand what "Shia Islam" means (it doesn't Islam in the traditional sense, as Iranian Shia Islam arose in juxtaposition and an attempt to reject that). It also means, at least for those of us who care about genuine enlightenment, progress and advancement in Iranian society, that Shia Islam comes to mean ultimately what I have tried to suggest it can mean. While there are dogmatic elements within that theology, there is a lot that is inherently flexible, dynamics, and which can further a profound "constitution" for Iran.
    I am glad you are a peer reviewed historian as that implies an interest in knowledge. But you totally misread the paragraph you were quoting. It was directed at your sources. Re-read what you highlighted and unless dismissing the sources you cited is "insulting", it wasn't directed at you.
    It doesn't matter if they are a "western stalking horse" or simply peddle westernized notions of what constitutes enlightened government. The dogma I have referred to is this idea that the definitions of right/wrong, enlightened/regressive, good/bad, etc, are to be provided by western ideology and yardstick. On this point, my own ideological foundation based on the best in Iranian tradition and ideology will be laid out for you clearly in my next message.
    I belong to the camp that was for centuries and millennia the mantle holder for the "East", namely IRAN. A country whose essence, ideology, and what it stood for, and how it influenced even western civilization, is simply not clearly understood (except by a select group of top ranked scholars and even then, only partially).
    In part, it is. More precisely, a system that is intended to allow material interests to compete through representative democratic institutions similar to the ones in the West, while making sure societies largest interest in the 'quest for truth' and what that entails for what is good and what is not, is reflected in an institution that isn't as influenced by material interests.
    While the issue you mention is ultimately a very temporal and transient issue, lets be clear: if Iran was not subject to what amounts to a US-forced worldwide sanctions regime and embargo of sorts, with the specific intention to prevent foreign trade and penalize any foreign investments in Iran, Iran would be able to attract hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment regardless.
    At each turn, a society is offered choices based on the evolution of that society and the real choice is to make the best choice of the realistic choices before you. The best choice for Iran, both on merit and procedure, would not be to copy western ideology. On procedure, that means having a system that will inevitably be despotic as you can't force an ideology that is still not the dominant one in a society on it democratically. You will inevitably have to use force to suppress majoritarian preferences and develop institutions for that purpose, which will then create its own despotism and corruptions. On merit, you need to read my next message to start understanding why I don't think western ideology is the best regardless.
    I don't want Iran to follow western footsteps but learn from its experience instead. For me, the highlight of the "West" was the past few centuries and the West is going to be in decline. And the reason for that decline has something to do with the limits of the great ideas that propelled its initial advancement.
    Whatever triumphs in Iran based on the evolution in Iran's own society is fine with me. Whatever triumphs by virtue of direct or indirect foreign meddling and interference is not.

    In the meantime, 2,500 years of a history you seem (correct my assumption if it is wrong) not fully aware and understanding of, suggests your confidence that the West will ultimately triumph over IRAN is probably misplaced.
     
  25. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a bit Rich. At the moment there are protests going on in Iraq and Lebanon
    about Iranian influence. So it's not just Iranians complaining about Iran's imperial
    ambitions - it's a large chunk of the Middle East.
     

Share This Page