My Twitter on Iran

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anne Halligan on June 20, 2009 at 5:57pm

James you make a valid point. However I think it's worth noting that even though all the factions are still deists, the protesters are fighting for the basic human right to be heard. Whilst I don't condone their faith, I support their right to protest. If by some major shift they manage to at least rid us of Ahmadinejad, some progress will have been made.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 20, 2009 at 9:37pm

In a theocracy, the clerics ultimately make all the decisions. They want Ahmadinejad to be their figurehead, and so he will be there. Even if his populist opponent had won, he would have been subservient to the ayatollah. Democracy and theocracy are mutually exclusive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 20, 2009 at 10:22pm

I am a bit overweight, but only a troll would watch CSI so religiously.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 21, 2009 at 9:12am

May I add an anecdotal observation? My parents, well-off but not wealthy by today's standards (my father was an attorney but made most of his money in real estate; my mother was always a housewife), became world travelers as Dad neared his retirement. They took University of Texas alumni tours through the Intrav organization. One of these took them to Iran. This had to have been prior to 1979. They came back with the following observations:

1. The people of Iran were warm, friendly, handsome and beautiful. 2. Most were scared half to death of their every remark and movement because of the totalitarian regime of the Shah. 3. Most hated the Shah and regarded him as a tyrant and a cruel, ruthless despot. Your observations, some of which I had not known or managed to forget, help explain most of what my parents told me about their trip to Iran. I would only add that in returning to "the stone ages" culturally, as a reactionary phenomenon, suggests that to many Iranians of the post-Pahlavi era, democratic ideas were equated, ironically, with fascism. As illogical as this might sound, my argument in posting the Twitter "clever bumper sticker" was not that the protesters in Tehran are frivolous or motivated by anything but patriotism, but that if their candidate won, the ayatollah who runs Iran would still be running it, and the country would not likely be much more democratic, if at all, as a result.

The protesters are still in the thrall of an anachronistic, monotheistic religion. Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive. The first tenet of Islam -- indeed, the very definition of the religion -- is submission. In a true democracy, one does not submit; one is represented. It can only be hoped that as a result of the extraordinary courage of those in Iran who oppose Ahmadinejad, change will come. Even if it is only cultural concessions (music, film, Internet, &c.), some progress may be had. But i would not count on it. I suggest that the Stephens of this world real Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great. The religious authorities in Iran are poisoning everything there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 21, 2009 at 4:12pm

Mr. Meyers writes: "So yes, right now I have more respect for the average theist Iranian than I do for the average atheist with a Save Darfur bumper sticker on their Subaru. And I will not apologize for that."

No need to. And I must say, if we had taken to the streets in 2000 the way the courageous, mostly young Iranians have in the past few days, this country might have been a lot better off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Halligan on June 21, 2009 at 5:36pm

I'm British and although I have my own position regarding how the electorate of the US dealt with the 2000 election, I agree that those taking to the streets in Iran should be applauded. Having been on demonstrations that turned violent (Poll tax anybody?), I know how frightening they are. That was in a supposedly democratic society though. I can only begin to imagine the fear and courage those people are battling every second of their lives at the moment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 21, 2009 at 9:03pm

Wasn't that the doing of the "Iron Lady," Margaret Thatchnut? That woman was separated at the hip from Ronald Reagan, which is why they got along so well. Did you by any chance see that marvelously sardonic portrait of her in the BBC drama, *Pinochet's Last Stand"? She actually tried to intervene and keep that asshole in England. If that doesn't tell people where she was positioned, nothing could.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Halligan on June 22, 2009 at 12:12pm

You're way more polite about her than I can even think of being James. My hatred of her runs deep and sadly we're still picking up the pieces.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 22, 2009 at 5:36pm

Ha! I was simply sussing you out. If I were locked in a room with that woman, I can assure you she would have to fight like a wildcat to fend off my attack. She is lower than slime on the floor of a public men's loo. A new book is coming out about the myth of Reagan's greatness. I must read it. I suspect it will have plenty about Creepy Maggie, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ObscureAtheist on June 22, 2009 at 5:40pm

wait a moment please!
first of all i admit that this phrase vexes me too BUT:
here all protesters are not very religious you can finds a vast spectrum of people in them. their shared subject is robbing votes but each group has its own some other goals too some of them are very religious who object about breaking god's laws like saying big lies and ...
there are some secular or none religious people too. and even some of them repeat this slogan(god is great) too but they don't believe in it. they just want to save the unity with other people against the government. this phrase is not just religious slogan or ideological one it has some other meaning to these people too. it was one their slogans in 1979 revolution so when they repeated it against this government again they want to show its failure too.
another important thing is that they want to announce to supporters of government we are not very different people we are like you and just we have some legitimate requests .
so for many of these people this slogan is not expressing a belief and for most of them it has more meaning than expressing a belief
another important thing that i like to say here is that : i count this protest a victory even until now! because at least now more people have tendency to be a secular Muslim and now they have seen the real face of their theocratic government.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on June 22, 2009 at 5:46pm

Thank you. I had been wondering why the exiled or expatriated Iranians appearing on the pundit programs, or those speaking from cell phones in Tehran, were quoting the protesters as chanting "God is Great." That is, why some of the commentators were saying that this was a "gesture of defiance." Now I know that it is not intended entirely, if at all, as a religious sentiment. Had I known this, I might not have posted my Twit, pace Stephen. I will pass this information on to anyone who asks me about it. What is great is that a forum like this brings people like to you discuss these matters online!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ObscureAtheist on June 23, 2009 at 3:04am

you are welcome :) .i think i should add that the original slogan is "Allah o akbar" which is an Arabic phrase and people in Iran don't translate it to Persian and say the original one and it s obvious when a Persian says it feels a little different when an Arab says it.in fact for a Persian it s a phrase with some religious load(and in most cases people don't care about its real meaning) and they look at it just an religious phrase . you can even sometimes hear it from ordinary conversation among people when they want to express their excitement or surprise something like "oh my god"

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page