Suddenly, Iran is aflame with protest

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

Tags:
  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was planning to lay out my philosophical and ideological view of things and how it connects to Iran and its history, but for now, it is easier and less time consuming for me to deal with your point.

    First, I wasn't talking about temporary ups and downs in political currents, but rather more lasting one. Second, the people who are being directed towards 'anti-Iranian' agendas in places like Iraq cannot represent (merely by virtue of going into the streets and rioting) the "Iraqi people". In fact, since Iraq has a democratically elected parliament which chose its leaders, and since the Iraqi people chose the very representatives that these rioters are complaining about, you can assume for now these rioters don't represent the majority in Iraq. And the same in Lebanon. Third, in the broad sense of history I was talking about, IRAN has fallen under Western political control once in its history and then for a shot time, namely after Iran's conquest by Alexander and then for a hundreds years under the Seleucid dynasty. And it has been ruled by westernized rulers for similarly brief periods in its long history: a short time under the Parthians, before the anti-Hellenic period during the Parthian dynasty and then the rise of the Sassanian empire to replace the Parthians with an even more nationalistic Iranian regime; and for a short time beginning in the mid 19th century until the Iranian revolution, when Iran (while nominally independent politically) was affecting westernized agendas. Given the 2,500 years of history marked by numerous wars and attempts by the West to conquer Iran politically and dominate it otherwise, these periods are footnotes in the larger history of IRAN.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  2. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We can examine their facts without drawing their conclusions.
    Why is it necessary for Iranians to be loyal to your system of government if they believe it reasonable for Iranians to change it?
    Foreign enemies justify repressing citizens who want change?
    By your own admission, a significant number of Iranians reject the system you developed.
    I'm interested the their facts, not their conclusions.
    Do you see something wrong (see above)? Anyway, the solution is to stop threatening to prosecute people for homosexuality or adultery.
    You shouldn't be able to punish a spouse for adultery.
    Can we stick to the facts? I'm not interested in your opponents' narratives.
     
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The trump policies are collapsing= Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden released a joint statement an Iran’s nuclear program by all parties involved.
    Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden released a joint statement asserting it’s of “the utmost importance to the preservation and full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) on Iran’s nuclear program by all parties involved.”
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. Just make sure you do so dispassionately and not with similar preconceived notions and agendas.
    Every institution and system seeks to preserve itself. That is not peculiar to Iran. You cannot make fundamental changes in the American system of government even if you had majority sentiment on your side, much less if you didn't. And that is the case everywhere else basically.
    The US (a superpower) was faced with a group of cavemen at the time of 9/11 and that led to a serious assault on civil liberties over fears what they could do again. Iran is facing far more serious threats.

    People in Iran are actually entitled to seek change through legal means as long as they keep away from groups and organizations that advocate the overthrow of the system of government. We can discuss how easy or difficult would be to bring about fundamental change in Iran without resorting to violence and without seeking foreign interference and compare that with other societies including the US.

    Yes, but a greater number don't. The minority who rejects the system needs to follow legal avenues for change. Again, I can lay out those avenues for you if you wish me to do so.
    Good.
    Maybe you didn't understand my message: no one in Iran is threatened with prosecution for homosexuality or even homosexual conduct. Iranian laws on the subject are meant only as an expression (whether enlightened or not) of societies belief that such conduct is wrong. Otherwise, there is zero chance (even when you sign a statement saying you have engaged in homosexual conduct as is now done regularly by homosexuals who seek military exemption) of being prosecuted for such a crime. Everything that is said about Iran on this issue is a lie (other than the truth I admitted regarding Iran's legal provisions).

    And you can't in Iran. Indeed, adultery has less of a legal consequence in Iran than in most countries in the world.
    Facts on these issues you have raised, but you wouldn't know because it boils down to who you 'trust' to tell you the facts:

    1- Despite contrary reports which are lies and false, no one in Iran is prosecuted for homosexuality or homosexual conduct. Not one person. First, it is impossible unless someone has engaged in sodomy in public since the law requires multiple witnesses to the act. Second, such prosecution goes against actual Iranian practice and policy, which is to condemn the conduct as a statement of morality but not to prosecute it legally.
    2- No one in Iran is prosecuted for committing adultery. For many of the same reasons as stated above.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    Margot2 likes this.
  5. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing to do with Trump in the Big Picture. It's all to do with Nuclear Non Proliferation.
    When Iran gets The Bomb then overnight so too will Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.
    Same with North Korea and its supporters in Beijing and Moscow - eventually the USA's
    "Nuclear Umbrella" breaks down and Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. go nuclear.
    Russia and China are not going to be happy.
    You might not have a problem with that as your are mired in Trump this, Trump that,
    but for the rest of us - a world where nuclear weapons are standard ordinance in every
    nation and terrorist group, is dystopian.
     
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

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

    Don't like America? Get the hell out NOW.

    upload_2019-12-2_23-17-14.png
     
    Thedimon likes this.
  7. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran doesn't have the bomb.
     
  8. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet.
     
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was the reason for Obama's agreement with Iran.. to delay their making a bomb perhaps indefinitely and open a path for Iran to return to being a member of the international community in good standing.
     
  10. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think indefinitely was ten years? Iran plays the long game.
    Western democracies cannot play the strategic long games.
    Nth Korea shows, thanks to Russia and China, that you can
    develop nuclear weapons and their delivery systems with
    impunity. I wonder if there will come a time when people
    can no longer live in large cities due to the constant threat
    of nuclear war or nuclear terrorism.
     
  11. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot can happen in 10 years. In ten years the Iranian hardliners may all be dead or if Iran had been prosperous and peaceful they might not want the bomb.
     
  12. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Might" is a dreadfully vague word.
    If we said we will build a nuclear reactor the Left will say it "might" fail
    and poison us all. Even if that "might" could be one a million. But the
    same people will defend Iran because its the enemy of the West, and
    Iran "might" build a nuclear bomb is okay, though the chances could
    be one in a million that it doesn't.
     
  13. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Friend, I was at Disneyland last year when I had an epiphany, then and there.

    What did Winnie the Pooh say to Tigger?

    Answer: You scratch my back and I'll scratch Eeyores.

    [I crack myself up! I got a million of em. Well, only 999,999 now.]
     
  14. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The regime has killed 450 democracy protestors in the last few weeks.

    At least the Shah is gone.
     
  15. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Shia, indeed.
    The Supreme Leader has veto over who serves on the Assembly of Experts. That preserves the system.
    It's your country, of course, but I could never support a theocracy.
    Why is it necessary to exclude infidels?
    Shia Islam is religion even if it is more acceptable than, say, Wahhabism.
    What's wrong with "westernized notions" if people accept them as good ideas? The West of today has borrowed from other cultures, including yours.
    These should be subject to discussion and change with the resolution settled by the political system.
    Seems like a post hoc rationale.
    Is religion the answer to fighting the power of financial interests? I don't think so.
    Financial interests don't want to be caught on the wrong side of a tariff or sanction wall, so there's no doubt capital investment is hurt by sanctions. That said, Iran's society and laws toward women in particular puts a premium on salaries that must be paid to foreigners to bring in and operate technologies Iran must have to compete.
    Why not focus on what's best for Iranians instead of framing what Iran should do in terms of what the West is or isn't doing? Iran has extensively adopted western technology, and technology often impacts societal norms, so it's not that Iran isn't exposing itself to outside values.
    So, why graft a cleric on the democratic process?
    The West already won, decades ago.
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not just Shia, but Iranian Shia ideology.
    While "preservation of the system' is certainly one of the main functions of the Supreme Leader, the notion that he has 'veto power over who serves on the Assembly of Experts' is grossly exaggerated. To the point of being utterly misleading. Grossly exaggerated as a matter of law (where even direct decisions are constrained by the need for the acts to be considered legitimate under both the written and unwritten provisions of Iran's 'constitution', much less decisions which are thrice removed, indirect, as it relates to the vetting of a diverse set of people by the Guardians Council who are then elected directly by the people in contested elections and who can't be removed from their posts until the end of their term), and as a matter of practice (where many of his rivals and critics are elected to the Assembly -- an assembly that was, in fact, chaired for a couple of years until he passed away a few years ago by Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of his biggest rivals).
    I don't care about labels. I could never support a system that forces people to live predominately by dogma. And if I felt that dogma, as opposed to other considerations, played the main role in the decisions by Iran's Supreme Leader, I would be troubled too. While there is some dogma inherent in Iran's system, as is the case in every other system I know, ultimately I know enough about Iran's system to know that it is guided by other considerations in its decisions. Some of it, regrettably, are corrupt considerations and that is the part that I feel offers the most accurate indictment of some of the practices and norms that have developed in Iran.
    Infidels? Not a term I would use. But generally you need to be loyal to the system and its ideology to be entrusted with its highest offices. That is typically the case everywhere else too, even if the ideology comes with different labels and the distinctions are made based on the different labels that are applied.
    The question is not a comparison with Wahhabism. Shia Islam, and particularly Iranian Shia Islam, has a peculiar methodology and set of beliefs that include a view of epistemology that sees the 'truth' being rather dynamic and subjective. A time, place, and manner concept and one which can be discerned by reason (as exercised by properly trained jurists). It is comparable in some senses to someone who believes in a higher, theistic, purpose and meaning in life beyond just the material world, and which otherwise seeks to find evolving truths using reason guided by a search for justice. Similar in some ways to the 'natural law' tradition in the West, except even more flexible and dynamic in what it finds from that exercise because properly utilized, this ideology does not look back but looks to the present and now.

    Anyway, while it is a religion, and while at its inception it was mainly an intra-Arab political division regarding who should succeed the prophet Mohammad, it eventually became a rather Irancized ideology, especially as it relates and refers to the Iranian strand of Shia Islam. A few dogmatic elements remain in the ideology but once those are removed, it can be a rather comfortable methodology for me and my view of what can works best for Iranian society.
    Any part of 'western notions' that are accepted as 'good' are no longer peculiarly 'western' to me. Those which aren't accepted as such, but are attempted to be imposed as good, are the ones that trouble me.
    I agree, except I prefer the resolution to be also guided by more than the balance of financial and economic interests (and those which have a preponderance of influence based on such factors).
    I don't understand why you say this? Or even what part of it could possibly be a 'post hoc' rationale in your mind.
    Religious dogma, no. On the other hand, an institution led by someone akin to a "philosopher king" who is trained to search for principles that aren't influenced merely by power of financial interests, and which has relative independence from those interests, and whose ideology includes a certain detachment from material interests, might help.
    Because Iran has no better institution that has preserved aspects of its independent, age-old, Iranian set of beliefs and traditions to develop its version of "philosopher kings". One that is capable of picking up from other traditions but can develop those ideas in a more naturally evolutionary and less of a copy-cat manner. And, in the process, come up with rather meritorious answers overtime.
    When I said you are influenced by dogma, this is an example. Unlike those who can't see the forest for the trees, and might believe that with the end of the cold war, the "End of History" had started in terms of the great ideological battles that influenced historical developments, I don't agree at all. And I believe the main ideological battle to come will be actually between the age-old mantle bearer of the East against the West. And of course what you understand about that ideology and the practices in this East will, as always, be tainted by propaganda!
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

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

    Imagine Shia Islam stood for the philosophy I outline below, and which believes that the 'quest for truth' was best left for properly trained jurists who were kept sufficiently insulated from material interests. With a divergence of beliefs allowed among those who would have graduated from its ranks, with the people free to choose their source of emulation and to follow whoever among those who were properly trained, and in a system which elevated one of them to be the 'philosopher king' with certain powers to guide the democratic institutions in society. Would labels such as theocracy and religion still bother you?

    Here is what I wrote about this philosophy or ideology elsewhere.
    ------------------
    In the evolutionary process of human development, one of the things that distinguished human beings from other animals that had learned to pack together for survival, was that human beings -- besides having a perhaps higher intelligence to pursue the same or similar instincts that you will find in other animals such as (among other things) survival, control, and procreation -- also developed a yearning for the "truth". In my philosophy, the truth is like an invisible light towards which more advanced human beings are drawn to. The "truth", in this conception, is different from the 'material world". In more modern, scientific parlance, it is similar to the (misnamed) "dark matter" and "dark energy" which is invisible and unknowable (at least for now) that is separate from the material world but which we now exists due to various scientific reasons.

    This yearning for the "truth" also is the only true guide and symbol of the 'spiritual' (meaning something that stands above and more important than the material world). It exists in human beings and is both helped and hindered by the material instincts which exists in us otherwise. (The cosmic battle between the forces of 'good and evil' in ancient Iranian ideologies as developed in Zoroastrian thought was a battle between the forces of 'truth' and the forces of falsehood).

    The yearning for "truth" is helped to the extent that material advancements in human society pave the way for a better understanding of the "truth", as is the case with scientific progress and the material requirements for such progress to continue its march towards finding the "truth". It is hindered to the extent that the material instincts to "control", "procreate" and "survive" lead to the development of dogmatic (as opposed to flexible) myths that retard the search for "truth" or when rampant materialism develops habits (akin to addiction) which guide people away from an interest in the "truth" and towards simple, material, self aggrandizement. Indeed, as hinted by Iran's own Islamic tradition, reflected both in its underlying sufi traditions, its poetry, literature and philosophy, as well as even in its Shia Jaffari Usuli school of Islamic jurisprudence, the material world is somewhat itself like a "myth". The essence of the the "truth" lies outside of the forms it takes in this material world.

    In terms of what I have named the Quest for Truth elsewhere, the most powerful tool provided to human beings through our evolutionary development (besides the inner instinct that yearns to learn the truth -- which to me is synonymous with the "love of God" in Iran's Sufi tradition reflected in people like Rumi) is the faculty of reasoning. As Irano-Islamic scholars long before Descrates had discovered, however, 'reasoning" and "rational thought" doesn't take you far in terms of actually reaching the truth. Instead, such reasoning can primarily help in striking down falsehoods, while paving the way for more enlightened and less dogmatic 'myths' to replace old ones in this (itself evolutionary) quest for the 'truth'.
     
  18. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know, it's Big News when one protestor dies in Hong Kong
    Seems strange to think that in Iran and Iraq they gun them down
    by the hundreds and it's hardly an issue.
     
    Texas Republican likes this.
  19. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course.
    I don't agree that our response to 9-11 was "a serious assault on civil liberties."
    So, you would interpret an effort to peacefully change the system to remove religious oversight of legislature as "overthrow ... the system of government?"
    Way too many caveats on the actions of people wanting change. Peaceful citizens agitating for change may wish to compare Iranian laws and society with other countries.
    Sounds like you're on a glide path to accepting homosexuality as a natural condition for something like 3% of society.
    How do you explain THIS?

    BTW, there are laws against adultery in several U.S. states.
     
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. As long as the effort is not seeking a forceful change, nor presenting what in US constitutional tradition would be considered an imminent threat to incite violence and similar unlawful acts, I would have no problems with an advocacy of any view.
    They can compare their laws to any society they want. They can't work with groups being funded, supported, and organized from outside connected to states which Iran views as its enemies. You have the same in the US with the enemies given different titles (e.g., "terrorist organization") and the laws that cover such restrictions including besides 'anti-terrorist laws', those couched as 'sanctions' against this or that state. You just don't realize it because like the majority in Iran, those affected by such laws are a minority -- albeit a much smaller minority than in Iran.
    A person's private sexual orientation is none of my business. I don't care about it one bit.
    I have already explained it to you. Read the provisions yourself carefully. They take traditional Islamic legal principles and then extend them subtly in such a way that, in practice, it becomes impossible to prove adultery. And rather easy to punish anyone attempting to accuse someone of adultery.

    None of the legal provisions in the other chapters of the law mean anything if you can't prove adultery as required under Chapter 2, Articles 68-81. To prove adultery under these sections, you either need multiple confessions by someone in open court or multiple witnesses to the specific act of adultery. Otherwise, you can't prove adultery. But that is not where the law ends. If you fail to meet that burden, you will be subject to serious punishment for making the accusation. Who commits 'adultery' in front of 4 witnesses to the act? Who would risk making such an allegation against someone else if they know they will face serious punishment?

    Read these provisions carefully:

    Who will be willing to testify to someone else's adultery if by doing so, they will be punished?

    Who is going to risk testifying to witnessing adultery when proving 'false accusation' is so easy and rather arbitrary? Not only before testifying, you have to make sure there are multiple witnesses to the adultery, but you have to make sure all these witnesses say the same thing in the details they describe. Otherwise, each witness will be subject to punishment! Find me a sane person who would testify against someone else under the circumstances. And that is leaving aside the fact that adultery and sodomy aren't things which are ordinarily done in public in front of multiple witnesses!

    As I said, in Iran, the actual legal consequences of adultery are less in practice than in most countries in the world.
     
  21. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The issue of sodomy and adultery, and it legal treatment in Iran, can serve as a window to a more significant distinction between having a properly trained jurist espouse the appropriate response to such conduct as opposed to 'laymen'. In turn, it also reveals the difference between the methodology of Shia Islam and those which don't have the same institutions invested to guide the community when it comes to the 'law'.

    Many laymen in many societies find adultery and sodomy as something that is 'sinful'. While, in its opposite, you have an evolving western attitude which does not believe in any 'moral' rights or wrongs. That is the case in Iran as well. To those people who view adultery or sodomy as 'sinful', these extra procedural requirements to prove adultery or sodomy as exists in Iranian law are technicalities and the real objective should be to punish such behavior. If these people (laymen imbued with a laymen's understanding of religion) ruled society, they would find ways to get rid of these 'technicalities' altogether (while westernized individuals would get rid of the 'moral condemnation' of the law altogether instead).

    A properly trained jurist in Iran, sufficiently indoctrinated in Iran's mystic, suffi, and skeptical legal and jurisprudential traditions which underline Iranian Shia theology, but who nonetheless had a belief that there are evolving 'moral truths' that need to be expounded to further societal interests, would view all these proscriptions as subjective sanctions which were meant to serve societal interests at a given time and place in a manner which fit the circumstances of that time and place. For them, the 'technicalities' are the means to make sure 'dogma' doesn't overtake the real essence, which isn't to actually make sure some conduct doesn't take place but to help guide the society towards in the right direction. That the essence remains a commitment to protect the institution of the family through proper indoctrination and guidance, to encourage loyalty and fidelity in the community of faithful by such indoctrination, with the technicality provided in these laws the means to ensure that such guidance doesn't turn into a vehicle for intrusion in the domain of personal sovereignty and rights which are the cornerstone of the institution of the family and the larger society which is then build upon that institution.

    It is, I suppose, theoretically possible to build a society without the institution of the family being its cornerstone and foundation. But for now, the foundations of traditional societies everywhere has been the institution of the family: the institution that rears future generations (children), which organizes the first acts of societal bonding and paring and which involves the first places where notions of authority, responsibility, and accepted norms, are developed. In this smallest nuclear of society, namely the family, a truth (with a small t) has been revealed by experience: that some elements of authority are required for the institution to be kept together. That no two human beings think alike about everything. That there comes a time and place when someone's idea about what needs to be done needs to be given precedence over the other person. Otherwise, you will have an impasse a dissolution of the partnership between the man and woman that comprise the family. In this smallest institution, whose lessons are applicable in larger units too, actual responsibilities (with concomitant authority) can be divided between the two partners based on who can fulfill such responsibilities best. But the ultimate authority needs to rest in one of the partners or there will eventually be an impasse.

    The institution of the family is under assault everywhere that you find the influence of the West, including in Iran, where rising divorce rates, marital infidelity and adultery, children being raised out of wedlock, couples living together outside of marriage, and such other things are becoming increasingly normal. But until someone lays down a vision of a healthy, functioning, society that can properly rear its children and future generations without this traditional institution, the actual result of undermining this institution does not appear all that promising for the kind of values and ethos which are developed in children who then become adults.

    Unbridled individualism and selfishness, which views not the 'quest for truth' (knowledge) as the arena where human 'sovereignty' is at its greatest but which views the instincts humans share with all other animals as those which need to find the greatest expression, which include ultimately the instinct for self-gratification and control of others (all of which are important ingredients to help the proper evolution of society if appropriate controlled and harnessed but which can destroy its foundations if left unregulated), which is the direction of 'western ideologies' are evolving right now, can have serious repercussions of the kind of institutions in society. From the family to the children being reared into adults to the economic and political ideologies that will find support among them. The trajectory of all that will not be positive regardless of how positive were these same ideas to strike down the dogmas of western religious practices and beliefs.
     
  22. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes.
    Among other things we seek.
    I don't think there's a spiritual realm. There's no evidence for it.
    Again, there's no empirical evidence supporting your views about a spiritual world.
    Over my decades of teaching, I saw a positive change as increasing numbers of younger people look beyond gathering material things. The search for truth looked to protecting the environment, combatting global warming, helping people in poorer countries, promoting equality between races and genders.
    The spiritual realm should be separate from the political system.
    This is nice, but I see no reason to put clerics in charge of the spiritual.
     
  23. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    America's Rescue Team?

    E6CDFF75-3685-444A-BD5D-947560486B8F.jpeg
     
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The evidence of it arises from the negation of the material laws and their temporal nature. In modern scientific discovery, in the existence of 'dark energy' that governs 70% of the universe and which negates all the known laws and attributes of the material world. Otherwise, though, of course, the material evidence (which is here to simply guide material laws and suggest by their negation the spiritual real) can 'prove' an immaterial thing!

    In the meantime, in the ideology I allude to, skepticism is good. It helps strikes down falsehood and dogma. But it shouldn't become dogma itself.
    The quest for whatever is deemed good based on the best understanding and knowledge of the disciples at issue at any particular time and place, is fine with me. The process, as opposed to the substance, is more important to me. And the process is one where the idea of what is "good" is developed by properly trained scholars. Not by 'snake-oil' salesmen.
    The "spiritual realm" I speak about is one that is against 'dogma' by its ideology, but which emphasizes a higher good than simple material interests. It recognizes material interests as necessary forces to understand the spiritual realm. It sees the material world one that should be properly understood and brought to control. But it doesn't make it a God to worship individually or in society.

    To separate that from politics is to eventually undermine the very humanistic liberal traditions you espouse. Without that sense of a 'higher purpose' than material interests, eventually the whole edifice of the humanistic tradition you espouse will crumble.
     
  25. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't want my response to your post to be too lengthy, so I have separated the above points from the point I want to respond to below.

    You are too attached to "labels" and terminology. Clerics are referred to as 'scholars' in Irano-Islamic tradition. If their scholarship and training is wanting, that is what needs to be fixed. Not the idea that the same way you don't want laymen and snake-oil salesmen dispensing medicine, you don't want them dispensing ideas about good and evil.

    In Iran's tradition, whose influence are unmistakable in most properly trained Iranian religious scholars, including even Ayatollah Khomeini, everything about the material world and its terminology is a myth of sorts. Symbols with opposite meanings. The mysticism in this tradition is exemplified by many things, including Ayatollah Khomeini's own poetry. A poetry that is clearly influenced by the poetry of Iran's mystical tradition -- of poets such as Hafez and Rumi. In that poetry, words don't mean what they appear to mean. Their real meaning requires a more enlightened understanding.

    Here is some examples of Ayatollah Khomeini's poetry which if taken literally, would seem 'blasphemous' by Islamic precepts. But which suggest the larger point I am trying to make to you: don't be so attached to 'labels' and 'forms' of things. Dig deeper for their essence.
    https://goaloflife.files.wordpress....-of-love-mystical-poetry-of-imam-khomeini.pdf
    The Wine of Love, Mystical Poetry of Imam Khomeini
    Ayatullah Ruhullah al-Musawi al-Khomeini - XKP
    p.s.
    Besides the mysticism and skepticism I have alluded to, two strains of thought are dominant in Iran's 'shia theology' all the way to Ayatollah Khomeini and in the thinking of Iran's current Supreme Leader. One is the influence of pre-Islamic Iranian (Zoroastrian) thoughts, albeit under Islamic covering. The other the quest for an Eastern renaissance in the face of the challenge from the West, rejecting (in line with Iran's pre Islamic and post Islamic Sufi tradition) rampant materialism and searching for something more.

    The first (the Zoroastrian influence, which reflects itself today in the fact that Iran's new year and most important holiday is still Norouz which goes back to Iran's Zoroastrian heritage), is most clearly and explicitly found in the philosophy of Sohrovardi (who has a major district in Tehran and many streets in many cities in Iran named after him). And the latter (anti-Western, pro-Eastern renaissance, anti-materialistic strain) found in a more recent writer, Jalal Al Ahmad (died at a relatively young age in the 1960s) -- a secular writer who drank alcohol, who visited Israel and wrote about it (and at first embraced it as a possible vehicle for the Eastern Renaissance I allude to and then severely chastised and condemned it for being a Western colonial outpost), and who is the only modern intellectual and writer which Ayatollah Khomeini explicitly endorsed! Someone who has major institutes and highways named after him in post-revolutionary Iran.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Yahya_ibn_Habash_Suhrawardi
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Al-e-Ahmad
    https://notevenpast.org/the-israeli-republic-by-jalal-al-e-ahmad-2014/
    The Israeli Republic, by Jalal Al-e Ahmad (2014)
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019

Share This Page