[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Remembering two great leaders in the history of our nation
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toofaan



Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:24 pm    Post subject: Remembering two great leaders in the history of our nation Reply with quote

Remembering two great leaders in the history of our nation

These days coincide with passing away of two of great leaders in the history of our nation which is full of many extraordinary events but not enough of extra ordinarily great leaders. A glance at the process of history in Iran for the past 1400 years shows that, we were never able to have an extended period of stability in which a nation needs in order to reach true prosperity and provide opportunity for its talents to bloom. As the expansion of colonialism that was motivated by extreme greed and armed with superior fire power emerged, our nation became an easy target which was direct result from disintegration of the nation’s power to defend herself and also absence of a competent and truly patriotic leadership.

Our territory was shrinking from north and south while some local and tribal rulers were making deals with devil to establish their own ruling in this or that corner of Iran’s territorial boundary. Nation’s economy was a complete disaster and Iranian citizens who were mostly of peasants had to carry the burden of a major and many minor ruling families who cared for nothing but their own lavish life style which was based on looting the nation under unfair taxation process. In exchange, nothing of the most basic elements for stability of a society, like security and roads, was provided for the nation. Iranians were treated like a conquered nation by their own rulers while harems of their leaders were congested of enslaved women and associates of ruling class considered themselves owners of the land and the people.

Poverty was at its extreme and looting and hassling defenceless and poor people was a job for some groups and tribes who were in competition with rulers to get their own share. Health was a rare commodity and the whole nation was ridden with all kinds of dangerous and killer diseases. Sovereignty of the nation was violated from every corner with the help of powerful enemies who signed arbitrary treaties with this khan or that sheikh as protectorates to create jump start for future separation of different parts of the country. It was under such circumstances that a patriotic soldier of Iran named Reza Shah assumed leadership of the nation after Kadjar dynasty disqualified itself through extreme corruption and complete dependence on colonialist powers.

Details of historical events of this era in history of our nation is beyond the scope of this article but the magnitude of changes that happened in very short period of time is something which one can never pass by without noticing. Under Reza Shah the Great, Iran which was on the brink of total disintegration and disappearing from the global map as an independent nation, was revived to step in the road of progress and advancement in a world that was driven towards war every now and then by power hungry leaders of colonialist nations. In a short period of about 20 years from the day which Reza khan became prime minister of the nation to the time when our nation was unfairly invaded by allies in the WW II, Iran had come a long way to drag itself into the 20th century.

Internal and external enemies of Reza Shah the Great who were left with no valid argument against him tried very hard to tarnish his image by attacking his past and his “non-royal” family links! To these enemies, apparently “royals” of Kadjar dynasty were so much loveable and dignified that a person without any link to them could not qualify for leadership of the nation even if he paid with his blood and with his life to protect it! Ridiculously enough, his lack of formal education was made a big fuss of while his efforts in establishment of a true and organized educational system to the level of post secondary went unnoticed. He was accused of taking over people’s lands but nobody mentioned that in those days which nation was ridden with poverty, who owned the land other than those suppressive tribal leaders and big land owners who had blessing of Kadjar kings and their opium was served to them by their colonialist allies. And no one bothered to ask these people where did the land go and what happened to them.

Under Reza Shah’s leadership, a nation which did not count for anything other than property of rulers and their associates became a nation with names and IDs. A nation with proud history and determined to revive the glory of the past. Reza Shah worked with his own hands to contribute in construction of a road which later was called Pahlavi Street. He never rested when a hooligan made life unbearable for people in any corner of the country. He never removed his military outfit and his boots other than the time of sleep. He worked hard every day of his life to drag the nation which was put to sleep with cheap opium by colonialists on the path of modernization. He brought the lost dignity back to the nation and started sending Iranian students to other countries in order to expedite the progress of nation through taking advantage of other nations educational facilities. Reza Shah changed the traditional educational system in Iran which was controlled and ran by clergies and replaced it with modern and new educational system in the country to prepare the nation for future.

A lot of work was done during the era of Reza Shah the Great to install a good foundation in every field which were vital to progress of the nation. From security to health, from education to communication, from roads and railways to modernization of governmental organizations, from abolishing the meaningless titles and their privileges to freeing women of their veil and opening the doors of society to them, and many other big and small jobs, all and all could not be done without a patriotic love for the nation. As much as the magnitude and importance of the job which was carried out during Reza Shah’s era is undeniable, the amount of work which was done after that up to the year 1978, during Mohammad Reza Shah Aryamehr, in order to turn Iran into a new age industrial nation, is extraordinary.

When Mohammad Reza Shah took oath of office as a Constitutional Monarch, country was driven towards complete chaos by invasion of WW II allies. British had prepared themselves to bring Kadjar dynasty back by installing a British naval officer named Hamid Kadjar who was believed to be inherent to the throne. If it was not for patriotism and smart action of late Mohammad Ali Foroughi who was acting on the wishes of founder of new Iran, Reza Shah the Great, British would probably succeed considering plenty of the elements from Kadjars and other enemies of Reza Shah were present in Tehran at that time. From that point on, during the first 10 years of Mohammad Reza Shah Iran was on a very bumpy road. Shah himself survived different assassination attempts during this period while some of his allies were not as lucky as he was.

The work towards progress and industrialization of the nation continued and part of this process was dealing with obstacles made by colonialist enemies and battle with their elements which had infiltrated every institution in the country. Cold war had put a great burden on the nation because of very long border that Iran had with the Soviet Union which was considered the greatest enemy of western way of life. Iran, which its impartiality was violated during WW II by allies waging undeclared war against her, was dragged into another undesirable situation by becoming allied with western nations. As the time passed, Iran under leadership of late Mohammad Reza Shah, more and more distanced herself from trouble making alliances in order to establish peaceful relations with neighboring nations in direction of creating a stable region. Under these policies, Iran became closer with northern neighbor through economic ties which had mutual benefit for both nations.

Construction of the first nation’s steel mill was start of a new era for Iran as late Reza Shah the Great had wished and it was followed by establishment of a variety of manufacturing plants of different products to satisfy growing industrial and agricultural needs of the nation. The service sector of economy kept growing parallel to industrial and agricultural sectors. All of these required expertise and dedication by a great number of people. Policies of government had resulted in generating a considerable revenue from oil which were invested in different areas under supervision of trained and educated Iranian planners. All of this of course could never be implemented in a perfect way and without errors and man made problems under any circumstances and any realistic person could understand that qualities and flaws of human resources would definitely effect this process in one way or another.

Unfortunately we had flaws in some sensitive places of our society and the government which made a negative impact on the outcome of all these efforts. While late Shah and many ordinary Iranians at different levels were working hard to bring this era to a satisfactory and productive conclusion, some other Iranians, inside and outside the government, were working hard to depreciate and disregard all these efforts. In fact, if “Iranian element” was not at work alongside the enemies and negative forces in different ways, Iran would have surpassed South Korea and other new industrial and prosperous nations, long time ago. Sadly enough, we have no one to blame for our problems other than ourselves and the only solution to all these calamities is simply relying on our own common sense. In these days, we can only salute these two great men, great leaders in our history for what they accomplished.

They did their task. The patriotic task. the question is what did we do? and what are we doing now?


Sohrab Ferdows
sohrab@excite.com


Last edited by Toofaan on Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Truly great leaders. They are painfully missed and are irreplaceable! We are now in a second period of arab invasion in our history, which was created by many traitors similar to Salmon Parsi...such as Housain Fardoust, Shah's right hand, and other groups including, Jebhe Meli, National Front their members, Frouhars, Bazargon, yazdi, Barzegar, Sanjabee, BaniSader,etc. Tudehee (Communists), MKO, Islamist students, Bazari etc... bunch of sell out narcissists , puting their own personal ideology and interest ahead of their country.

Last edited by blank on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://ardi.rastakhiz.org/blog/?p=511


Why Iranians Loved the Shah (and Still Do)
By Ardavan Khoshnood | 2007-05-13


By Reza Bayegan - December 22, 2004
FrontPageMagazine.com

I picked up the telephone to talk to a friend right after a French television station aired an hour-long program about the Shah (entitled Le Shah d’Iran: un homme à abattre, by Reynold Ismar, broadcast December 5 on France 5). I asked her how she liked the program and she broke down crying and could not choke out any speech. Watching the program was not easy for me, either. I sat on the edge of the sofa glued to the television, swallowing my tears and watching a chronological account of the beginning and end of a man who was the king of my country for 38 years.

Why do I, my friend, and many other Iranians feel so passionately about the Shah? We were not part of his so-called inner circle to be missing the royal glamour with which we were once surrounded. Speaking for myself, I do not give a hoot for royal glamour. Neither are we pining for the cushy jobs we had while the Shah was in power. I and many of my peers were high school students when the Shah left the country and were not yet of employment age. Our parents had to work hard to make ends meet. No, the affection we have for the Shah has nothing to do with material considerations; it has everything to do with the love we have for our homeland.

The Shah was not a president, a mere ruler or head of state. He was a living manifestation of the continuity of our civilization. And what is that supposed to mean you might say? And you will be right in your skepticism. One hears a great deal of cant rattled off about our “ancient Iranian civilization” stretching from Greece and Egypt across Central Asia, to India and so forth. This kind of talk is only tiresome claptrap. A great deal of it is self-aggrandizement of people who hide behind the laurels of their forefathers. It can be meaningful only if the present achievements succeed in making a logical connection to the traditions and cultural heritage of the past. And a glance at the current state of affairs in our country obviously shows that this connection is non-existent.

So what after all do I mean when I say that the Shah was the manifestation of the continuity of our civilization? I mean he was the living representation and the custodian of an identity that was balanced on three pillars: religious faith, national heritage, and political tradition. He was the personification and upholder of that trinity that provided Iranians with their unique sense of selfhood setting them apart from other cultures and civilizations. ?The Shah was absolutely right when in a 1979 discussion with Sir David Frost, in answer to the celebrated interviewer’s question about what in his opinion was the common bond uniting the Iranian people, he answered “The crown, the king.”

For the past quarter of a century deprived of its Shah, that keystone of its national identity, Iran has been writhing in the throes of degeneration and backwardness. It has by no means lived up to its creative potential and true national aspirations. A look at the low morale of the dispirited Iranians living in their homeland (or abroad) shows the extent of this decay. The ever-climbing rates of suicide, drug addiction, prostitution, and family violence demonstrate how the moral foundation of our country has been disturbed and its central assumptions been thrown out of whack. If watching old movies of the Shah makes Iranians break down in tears, it is because of a huge emptiness in their national soul that yearns for fulfillment and repair. For the same reason, Reza Pahlavi’s website is visited by thousands of Iranians everyday, and Shahbanou is greeted by throngs of her compatriots wherever she goes.

The people of a nation can go from day to day, double or triple the size of their population, even materially prosper, and nevertheless remain dispossessed of something essential in their collective soul. To continue as a living civilization however requires something quite different. The Shah was a symbol and a proof of that stubborn Iranian spirit that had stood up to all foreign invasions and resisted all the trespass to its cultural integrity. It had survived the Greeks, Mongols, Arabs, Turks and the Communists because it held on to a spiritual core of national values, which was more powerful than any of those formidable foes.

What the mullahs represented was also an important part of this core. Shia Islam at its best like its Zoroastrian predecessor was a strong pillar that held up our national identity and provided us with a unique set of spiritual, moral and mythological values. These values like the monarchy itself are not measurable in utilitarian terms or by mathematical charts. Nevertheless their worth to the well-being of our culture has been inestimable. Anyone who denies this is either intellectually or emotionally out of tune with the Iranian situation.

The Shah himself was aware of that delicate structure that rested on religious faith, national heritage and a political tradition. Although he was following a secular programme for modernization and development of the country, not only had he nothing against the thoughtful branch of the Shia Islam, he did his best to support and promote it. Thanks to the Shah’s special attention the city of Mashhad, the burial site of the 9th century Shia saint Imam Reza gained high prominence as a magnificent pilgrim city and a reputable center of religious learning. The peaceful spiritual leaders in Qom were far freer in the time of the Shah than during the dictatorship of Ruhollah Khomeini who started the repressive custom of keeping his fellow ayatollahs under house arrest. Even Khomeini himself as the leading exponent of the most backward fanatical branch of violent shiaism had nothing worse to fear from the Shah than an exile into a holy city in the country’s neighborhood.

One should never make the mistake of thinking that the eventual downfall of the Shah proves that he was wrong in allowing so much power and resources to the country’s major religious faith. Apart from being a sincere believer himself, his astute mind provided him with a long- term vision and a far reaching insight into the delicately forged balance that kept the country together, territorially, emotionally and spiritually.

Contrastingly, the mullahs who opposed him could not see further than the tip of their noses. They could only think of short term gain, seizing the reigns of power and holding on to it as long as they could manage it. They failed to see, or could not care less about the long term interests of the religious faith they claimed they were trying to safeguard. They could not see that the heartlessness and emotional sterilization they were instigating against the Shah could eventually pave the way for their own departure. If a nation with 2,500 years of monarchy could bring itself to get rid of such a highly significant national symbol as the Shah, it could also manage to jettison a foreign religion with much less seniority. A parent who mistreats his spouse in front of the children could not expect to gain their love but should understand that he is eroding the sense of respect, family honor and fidelity that will one day come to haunt him. As the saying goes ‘what goes around comes around’. And the time for the end of Islamic faith at least in its present form has come around in Iran for quite some time. It is not a secret to anyone that the mullahs are derided and despised by the majority of Iranians. They hold political power by intimidation and repression and not because they are entrusted to do so by the free will of the population.

What kind of Shia Islam can be expected to emerge after the dust of the present dictatorship has settled in Iran is not an easy question to answer. Whether the religion of the majority of Iranians will be able to recreate itself and be born anew sometime in the future depends on many different factors. In its intelligent progressive form it will have a better chance of survival through the restoration of that political system which itself draws its strength from traditional values i.e. the constitutional monarchy. What is certain is that after their inevitable liberation from the present dictatorship, Iranians will never accept to give religion the overwhelming sway it once exercised in their political life. The concept of Shia Islam as the official religion of the country is finished. For that matter, the Iranian monarchy also in its old overarching form has for ever come to an end.

Today we Iranians are sitting amongst the ruins of twenty-five years of national turmoil. To prevail as a civilization we have to pick up the pieces and recreate our national trinity of God, the Shah and country (Khoda, Shah, Meehan) for the democratic (and secular /b) age of the twenty-first century. To think however that we can dissolve this trinity, reduce its number or concoct something else altogether instead is to repeat the folly of the Islamic revolutionaries.

A secular republic with no imaginative roots in our national consciousness for Iranians will be like a loveless marital contract full of clauses and sub-clauses but ultimately bereft of any binding emotional attachment or heartfelt yearning. We cannot build the future of our nation in a spiritual vacuum, forgoing its true sources of cultural inspiration and vitality.

What is certain is that multi billion dollar investments are not the only thing we require for rebuilding our country. We need to make an attempt to identify and heal our festering emotional wounds. We need to scrutinize the truth beyond the clouds of falsehood propagated in the past twenty-five years by political opportunists and religious terrorists. A good place to start is to consider clearly and free of fanaticism the place of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the history of our modern civilization. Such an understanding is essential for our moral recovery. It will enable us to come to terms with our past and proceed in the direction of creating a just, fair and humane society.

The Shah stood at the political helm of our country for nearly four decades, giving us his youth and old age. He bestowed on us all the intellectual and emotional energy his life could muster. The least we can do for him is to give him the recognition he deserves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject: living manifestation Reply with quote

Blank, I realize that you are not the author of the above article, and so my comments below are not directed at you, but at the article and its author.

I don’t get the time to post much these days. However, the article you posted grabbed my attention enough that I wanted to comment on it.

I do not disagree with the tribute that history owes the two Pahlavis. They were both good leaders, and I love them both. However, the author of this article is mixing up the poisons of a religious base with the historical greatness of the two Pahlavis.

Quote:
The Shah was not a president, a mere ruler or head of state. He was a living manifestation of the continuity of our civilization. And what is that supposed to mean you might say? And you will be right in your skepticism. One hears a great deal of cant rattled off about our “ancient Iranian civilization” stretching from Greece and Egypt across Central Asia, to India and so forth. This kind of talk is only tiresome claptrap.


Serious consideration must be given to the rationality of anyone that sees another human being as the manifestation of the continuity of one’s civilization. Furthermore, serious pity must be rendered to the same person that does not grasp and appreciate the “ancient Iranian civilization” that stretched over the boundaries of the then known world without having a contemporary idealized living human as a link to that civilization.

The term “living manifestation” makes me cringe, when I consider the state of mind of the person that utters it. “Living manifestation” is reserved to convey a meaning to someone who lacks any imagination at all, and is unable to grasp abstract ideas, or else it is reserved for someone whose imagination runs so wild that he must have links to fairy tails and make-believe concepts in order to appreciate something. Either way, it is not for the well balanced of mind.

“Living manifestation” is a very old term, and used throughout various cultures, and always for the same purpose. It is to link a living human to divinity, and to provide beyond-earth justification for that person’s right to power and wealth. The Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be “living manifestations” of their Gods. Alexander did the same, by claiming lineage to Zeus. The Japanese Emperors prior to WWII did as well, in order to be worshiped as Gods without any challenge to their authority. Of course, the Caliphs of medieval times and the Velayate Faqih of modern times are extensions of the same ideas, implying that the Caliph, or Faqih, is the “living manifestation” of Allah’s rule on earth.

As evidenced by history, “living manifestation” ideas are reserved to control the superstitious of limited intellect. Those that claim such linkage usually do so for selfish reasons, and the results have always been tyrannical oppressions.

Now, as far as I am aware, the Shah himself never claimed such “living manifestation” garbage about himself. It is this author, who has extrapolated his own desires for fairy tales to what the Shah truly represented, which is claiming this “living manifestation” about the Shah. Although this author has meant it in a flattering way, it is without doubt that he in fact has done the Shah a disservice with such a link.

Furthermore, one who is unable to grasp the beauty and magnificence of the ancient Iranian civilization in and of itself lacks the ability to grasp anything historical in value, and perhaps any idea without immediate sensory input. Such a person should not, however, assume that others are also of similarly limited intellectual ability.

Quote:
So what after all do I mean when I say that the Shah was the manifestation of the continuity of our civilization? I mean he was the living representation and the custodian of an identity that was balanced on three pillars: religious faith, national heritage, and political tradition.


The word “trinity” is nowadays designed to appeal to those with a superstitious attraction to divinity and out-of-this-world concepts. It was made famous, of course, subsequent to the Christian concept of a trinity, which makes no logical sense.

Anyways, each author has his own injection of a “trinity.” In this case, the trinity of religious faith, national heritage, and political tradition as pillars of identity.

Political tradition I consider nonsense as far as identity is concerned. Political tradition is only a method, or means to achieve the implementation of order and government. That which works is kept, and that which does not is abandoned. To hold on to traditions of politics regardless of its utility is to embrace fallacy. There is no loyalty that a nation must feel towards any particular political tradition, and the individuals that do are doing a disservice to that society.

Religious faith can certainly be a factor of identity when it comes to many individuals. However, whether it ought to be or not is another question. When I say “whether it ought to be,” I mean whether it is beneficial to that society or that nation or society that it be so. A very long explanation as to why religious faith’s incorporation into one’s sense of identity is deleterious could be offered, but that discussion would be beyond the scope of this single post. If one is interested in delving deeper into the matter, one is welcome to view the thread “Tribute to Bertrand Russell” on the philosophical explanations. Suffice it to say that religious faith is indeed a venom of society that ought not be embraced within a nation’s sense of identity. The reason that it has been incorporated into one’s sense of identity in the past is because of forced tradition. Certain traditions are harmful, and efforts ought to be taken to break them. Finally, even though religious faith is currently a part of the identity of some Iranians (mostly the superstitious and uneducated), it is not the most predominant symbol of identity. In fact, perhaps the “ancient Iranian civilization,” which that author feels is too far removed from us without a living link, is indeed the major identifying factor in most Iranians’ minds.

Therefore, only national heritage, or nationality, is noteworthy as the one true factor of Iranian identity. One factor…not three.

Quote:
The Shah was absolutely right when in a 1979 discussion with Sir David Frost, in answer to the celebrated interviewer’s question about what in his opinion was the common bond uniting the Iranian people, he answered “The crown, the king.”


When the Shah made this statement, he was wrong. He was either blinded by arrogance or ignorance. Of course, anyone can be blinded by arrogance or ignorance from time to time, and this is not a reflection of the Shah in his entirety.

What unite the Iranian people are two things: a) Iran’s long and proud history, and b) the Iranian people themselves.

The crown and the king have historically been an integral part of Iran’s history. However, it is the crown and king that must be viewed as subservient to Iran’s history, not vise versa. The reflection of a good ruler is that he acknowledges that he and the government exist to serve the people, and not the other way around. Irrespective of this statement by the Shah, I believe that in action he was actually aware of this requirement and exercised it by promoting the welfare of the nation.

Quote:
The Shah himself was aware of that delicate structure that rested on religious faith, national heritage and a political tradition. Although he was following a secular programme for modernization and development of the country, not only had he nothing against the thoughtful branch of the Shia Islam, he did his best to support and promote it. Thanks to the Shah’s special attention the city of Mashhad, the burial site of the 9th century Shia saint Imam Reza gained high prominence as a magnificent pilgrim city and a reputable center of religious learning.


This was without doubt a big mistake on the part of the Shah: Feeding the dog that would later bite him. I cannot blame the Mullahs for the ingratitude and betrayal that followed, for it is in their nature to be so. I blame the Shah for not recognizing such errors.

Quote:
To prevail as a civilization we have to pick up the pieces and recreate our national trinity of God, the Shah and country (Khoda, Shah, Meehan) for the democratic (and secular) age of the twenty-first century. To think however that we can dissolve this trinity, reduce its number or concoct something else altogether instead is to repeat the folly of the Islamic revolutionaries.


Again with the trinities. This time, the trinity is God, King, Country. Such slogans appeal only to the unthinking, and are tools to get them to submit to what they think are overwhelmingly greater forces.

There is no reason to incorporate allegiance to an invisible and non-existent being that has no bearing upon our lives and the welfare of our nation. Also, any Shah, President, Prime Minister, or other ruler deserves our allegiance and endorsement based only on his individual merit, actions, and policies with respect to his subjects or constituents.

Again, the only subject that truly remains out of this trinity is “country.” Allegiance must be rendered to one’s society and nation, before all else. Everything else is secondary.

Quote:
A secular republic with no imaginative roots in our national consciousness for Iranians will be like a loveless marital contract full of clauses and sub-clauses but ultimately bereft of any binding emotional attachment or heartfelt yearning. We cannot build the future of our nation in a spiritual vacuum, forgoing its true sources of cultural inspiration and vitality.


A democratic secular republic is exactly what Iran needs, and hopefully will some day achieve it. The Islamic Republic is the first experiment of a Theocratic, non-secular government in the modern age. The results are there for everyone to see. Anyone that thinks secularism should not be a founding principle of every nation needs only look at the current debauchery in Iran. If nothing else is clear as to the future government of Iran (or any other nation), it ought to be clear by now to even the most dim-witted person that secularism is a must, and is non-negotiable.

Love and emotion are not exclusive to religion. In fact, when it comes to a nation, religion only detracts from the love and dedication that ought to be channeled to one’s society and country.

For the love of Country, and only Country, nothing short of a pure secular nation, devoid of superstition and religious backwardness will do.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amir N:
As you indicated I am not the author of the article, therefore, I cannot speak for Mr. Bayegan. This was written in 2004, maybe today he would make some changes to it, who knows.
All I can say is my general opinion of this article, since I am not in either Mr. Bayegan or Shah’s mind, therefore, I will not make a fool out of myself trying to read their mind.

Realistically, there has always been some sort of belief or religion as part of all societies. Recently, all modern/advanced countries have chosen a secular system, however, at the same time, there is religious freedom, meaning, people can worship what they want, or don’t want. To me, “Khoda” as part of trinity, only represents the freedom of religion, for people to worship whatever they want. It does not mean that certain religion represents Iran or its constitution. I even like my father’s interpretation better: Khoda/Kheesh meaning “Self” or “self-awareness”.
I don’t know what Mr. Bayagan meant by “living manifestation of the past” this is something you need to verify with him, since I do not accept your interpretation of his sentence.
Meaning of Shah is self evident. If you are a republican it is meaningless to you-- although I see that at the end of each of your postings you use a king’s name, Darius… I am the King of Kings etc. etc. which is ironic! Many of us believe that King is a symbol, like the Lion on our flag, which not only units people, it is a representative of our history & culture. Although, kings’ duties are, now days, mostly limited to public relation, and promotion of ones country and ceremonial. In a dire situation that Iran is now for the past 29 years, what we need, is the pride and that symbol that connects us to our past history which has been destroyed by islam & islamist. This connection and symbol of unification is our flag and our king, to revive our historical ceremonies such as Norooz, Mehregan, Charshanbe soori etc. If there is going to be a monarchy in Iran it would be a secular democratic one, similar to Sweden, Japan, Spain & most other European countries. So, I disagree with your interpretation of what a “king” means to our country.
A republic does not automatically guarantee secularism, and unfortunately, I look around and see that just about every republic in the Middle East, is a debacle. Republic has never worked for Iran and it never will. I have also found that most republicans are “ideologues”, either their way or highway! To me an ideologue is as bad as a religious person, they both put their ideology before the welfare of others. For a while, I was not sure what form of government I would have preferred to see for Iran, so I talked to several republicans and monarchists. To my dismay, I found most of the republicans very rigid in their ideology, again they absolutely would not accept anything but a republic, however, I found many monarchists more flexible, they were willing to accept a republic if that was the will of majority. That alone helped me to make up my mind! Somehow, you have equated monarchy to islam and superstitious behavior, which is totally opposite of what the monarchists that I know, want for Iran’s future. Number one on our list is: Bill of Rights, to protect All, and yes, to your surprise we all want a secular system, separation of religion and state, including, Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Finally, Meehan…. I don’t think I need to explain that....
God Bless Iran
Khoda negahdare Iran


Last edited by blank on Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear blank,

Again, I must reiterate that my comments were directed at the article and its author, and not at you. From the time that I have known you on this site, I have always held you and your thoughts with the highest respect, and I will continue to do that, because I know that you are a good Iranian and a patriot. I want to make that clear, before I go on responding any further.

Now, for the response:

Quote:
Realistically, there has always been some sort of belief or religion as part of all societies.


I realize that. If you read carefully, I acknowledged that fact in my original reply. I went on to say “ought it be a part of a society’s identity?” Whether it ought to be a part of a society is the issue I posed. Given the fantasy thinking that religion is composed of, and given its historical track record throughout the world, my answer is a clear “no.” So, even though religion has been a part of all societies in the past, it does not mean that we ought to embrace it and continue down its malicious path.

I would also propose that cancer and diabetes have also always been a part of every society. However, ought we embrace them? Ought they be a part of society? If so, then all research on cancer and diabetes treatments should cease.

Man has conquered polio and smallpox. Someday, he will conquer cancer and diabetes. Some day, even further down the road, he will also conquer religion.

Quote:
Recently, all modern/advanced countries have chosen a secular system, however, at the same time, there is religious freedom, meaning, people can worship what they want, or don’t want.


The reason that most modern countries have chosen a secular system is because they have experienced the pitfalls of religious intervention in government. Most countries at some time in their past have had a taste of theocracy. The European countries are no exception. During medieval times, Christianity’s grip was just as malicious as is today’s Islam. Through religious persecution and through advancement of free-thinking and science these European countries finally came to the conclusion that religion ought to stay private and out of the public domain and government.

Incidentally, one of the first nations to adopt secularism into its newly formed state, the US, did so because of its experience with religion. The reason that the pilgrims and other immigrants came to the New World was to escape the religious persecution of Europe. They experienced the disaster of religion mixing with government, and when they finally forged their own nation, they made a clear implementation of a secular government.

When you cite the example that secular governments allow for personal freedom of religion, and everyone is free to practice whatever he wants, that is not contrary to what I say. Of course, in a secular government, all must be free to practice whatever religion they wish and believe whatever they wish. In fact, that is the definition of a secular government. If all were not free to believe whatever they wanted, this would imply that the government was partial to one particular religious agenda, and therefore such a government could not be considered as secular, since it is mixing itself up with religious practices.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me to mean that a secular government is one that promotes the extinction of all religions. That is very removed from what constitutes a secular government. A secular government is one that promotes religious equality for all its constituents, gives no preference to one form of religion over another, and fights to uphold the idea that religious beliefs must be private matters and thus bans the imposition of any particular religious ideology in public domains, especially in the government. If the members wish to be devil worshipers, or Christians, or Muslims, or Agnostics, or worshipers of Zeus, they are free to do so, as long as they do not wish to interject it into government or public places where others are forced to listen to it.

I hope that my explanation of a secular government was adequate.

Quote:
To me, “Khoda” as part of trinity, only represents the freedom of religion, for people to worship whatever they want. It does not mean that certain religion represents Iran or its constitution.


I am very glad about the meaning you have given to the term Khoda. If your definition of God is “freedom of religion for all,” then I have no argument against that. However, my prior comments were not directed at your particular beliefs or disbeliefs regarding God, but at the general consensus. To the majority of people that mix up God with Iran, it is a very literal interpretation of God that they interject into the state. It is that majority to whom my comments apply.

Quote:
I don’t know what Mr. Bayagan meant by “living manifestation of the past” this is something you need to verify with him, since I do not accept your interpretation of his sentence.


I don’t think I care enough about him or his thinking for me to go track him down to ask what he meant exactly. However, as I have cited a handful of historical examples of the term “living manifestation” throughout an expanse of various cultures and epochs, it would seem that there is a pretty good understanding in this world when such a term is used. It has always implied the same thing, whether in Egypt, Greece, Japan, Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia, Arabia, or Iran. I doubt that the interpretation I have assigned it is incorrect, since the same interpretation has always been attached to it everywhere else.

Quote:
Meaning of Shah is self evident. If you are a republican it is meaningless to you-- although I see that at the end of each of your postings you use a king’s name, Darius… I am the King of Kings etc. etc. which is ironic!


Indeed, I do think that a republic is a better form of government than a monarchy. However, I am not here to debate the merits of a republic, and I see the issue as somewhat premature at this stage, when Iran is still captive to a theocracy. I think that the time to really get into such a debate is when Iran is free, or its freedom is imminent, and the people of Iran must decide on a form of government. At that point, I will get into a detailed discussion on the matter. Prior to that, the only merit I see in it is in mental exercise. The demerit I see in such a premature debate is that it will drive a wedge between those that believe in a republic and those that believe in a monarchy. In fact, I see such wedges drawn out between members of different political parties everyday, whereby it becomes more important than the issue of freeing Iran. That is the real travesty. A lack of unity, because of the petty bickering over issues that at the present time are meaningless.

The term Shah is not meaningless to me. I am fully aware of what it means. I am aware of its benefits, as well as its shortfalls.

As far as my signature, you are correct that at the end of my posts there is that quotation referring to Dariush and the King of Kings. However, I see no irony with it. That statement is one that was carved into the side of a mountain (now referred to as Naqshe Rostam) some 2500 years ago to commemorate one of Iran’s greatest leaders and champions, Dariush the Great. I take pride in Iran’s history and national identity. A part of that identity is the Achaemenid Dynasty, and Dariush the Great. I therefore pay homage to him, the Achaemenids, and Naqshe Rostam with each post I place, by repeating Dariush the Great’s key sentence identifying himself to the world. Part of that identification is his mention of “King of Kings.” As you know, the ancient Iranian Kings referred to themselves as King of Kings. It is merely of historical context at this point. I am not going to edit out such statements in historical records, or their historical significance, simply because I don’t think that monarchy is the best form of government in the modern age.

I hope you see now why there is no contradiction or irony in the fact that I make reference to the key identifying statement by Dariush and the fact that I do not promote monarchies.

Quote:
In a dire situation that Iran is now for the past 29 years, what we need, is the pride and that symbol that connects us to our past history which has been destroyed by islam & islamist.


I say that we are stronger than that, to need symbols such as kings to connect us to our magnificent pre-islamic past. However, if a symbol is needed, why not think of the hundreds of ancient archaeological sites of Iran, Appadana, the Cyrus Cylinder, Naqshe Rostam, Behistun Inscription, etc?

Quote:
If there is going to be a monarchy in Iran it would be a secular democratic one, similar to Sweden, Japan, Spain & most other European countries. So, I disagree with your interpretation of what a “king” means to our country.


Perhaps you misunderstood. I was not commenting on what a king indeed means to our country. I was commenting on what the author was saying a king means to our country. I certainly do not think that a king ought to mean what the author was implying. That is, a “living manifestation” of Iranian civilization. Deification of a person is dangerous, no matter whom that person happens to be.

Quote:
A republic does not automatically guarantee secularism, and unfortunately, I look around and see that just about every republic in the Middle East, is a debacle.


There have been many “republics” in history that have been putrid. However, more often than not, that’s because those examples were not true republics. They were only republic in name. A republic that is under totalitarian rule is not really a republic. It is a dictatorship. Technically, if you believe the name, then Iran is currently a republic (Islamic Republic). China is a republic (Republic of China), etc. What’s in a name, if it is false? A republic must be free, so that the public can represent itself. If not, it was never a republic. The same is true for the Middle Eastern republics you mention. They are dictatorships with the name republic attached in order to justify them.

Nonetheless, I do not propose that a republic is the only means to a nation’s well being, and I would gladly accept a constitutional monarchy that is truly democratic, if the majority of Iranians willed it so. I see no malice in a democratic government that wishes to keep figureheads of royalty that have no real power. I wouldn’t promote it, because I see no benefit in it. However, if most wish to have it, I would not oppose it.

If in a free Iran, after a thorough debate of form of government has been undertaken, the majority of Iranians vote for a constitutional monarchy, I’ll accept that and call it a day. However, in reality, I highly doubt that day will ever materialize. That’s because I think that the majority of Iranians are done with any form of monarchy and want to move on from it. I think that most Iranians want a democratic government without link to a monarchy. Regardless, that’s a matter for a later day.

Quote:
Somehow, you have equated monarchy to islam and superstitious behavior, which is totally opposite of what the monarchists that I know, want for Iran’s future.


I’m not sure why you would say that. It certainly isn’t true. I do not link monarchy with islam and superstition. My comments were in response to that author. He, it would seem, does link monarchy and kings with superstition and islam, as he clearly mixes religion, spirituality, and God with King, Iran, and nation. That is the mistake that I don’t want to see happen. I don’t think that monarchy itself, or all monarchists share his beliefs. However, I would oppose those that do any day.

Like I said, the claims that he was making about the Shah were ones that I don’t think the Shah himself ever made. Had the Shah behaved in a manner that this author suggests, I would not have held as high an opinion of him as I do.

In conclusion, even though I said a lot, there are two points that I wish to convey more than anything else.

1. No person needs to be deified or seen as anything other than another normal human being. To do otherwise is not only deleterious to the worshiper, but also the worshiped.

2. Any state that wishes to promote equality, justice, the welfare of its citizens, and its own success must accept a secular form of government, and keep religion out of the public domain of the nation and restrict it to the Church / Mosque or home. Without secularism, freedom cannot exist.

Quote:
God Bless Iran
Khoda negahdare Iran


In reality, may Amir (and others like him) Bless Iran, because so far God has done a real shitty job of it.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pardon me for butting in to a most interesting chat, as I always find reading Sohrab Ferdows' comments a most worthy use of my time...educational too.

I am reminded of the recent passing of another great monarch, "father" of his country, and an inspiration to its citizens in troubled times.

I speak of Zahir Shah, former king of Afghanistan, a decent fellow who put his people before himself, strove to improve their lives, and was instrumental in helping the Afghan people move beyond the past, as many wished a return to the monarchal system....The king who would not be king in favor of democracy, in restoring tradition of the loya jirga, as a democratic institution.

This was indeed a rare individual, and one worthy of the respect and memory of the Afghan people, for all time.

I often wonder what would happen if Reza Pahlavi, instead of saying "Let the people decide." (regarding any future return of royalty to the halls of power in Iran) , simply made the decision for them and said, " The time has come for the Iranian people to move beyond their current circumstance, nor is it for me to wish them to restore the past, as I've moved beyond any attachment to rule over them, or of restoring the position my family once enjoyed, even be it ceremonial in nature. Thus, it is my duty simply as Iranian, to help prepare their inevitable transition to a truly democratic and honorable system of government."

So I ask any who care to opine, this "what if" question:

What would become manifest from such a statement, if uttered?


Regards,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:
Dear blank,

Again, I must reiterate that my comments were directed at the article and its author, and not at you. From the time that I have known you on this site, I have always held you and your thoughts with the highest respect, and I will continue to do that, because I know that you are a good Iranian and a patriot. I want to make that clear, before I go on responding any further.

Now, for the response:

Quote:
Realistically, there has always been some sort of belief or religion as part of all societies.


I realize that. If you read carefully, I acknowledged that fact in my original reply. I went on to say “ought it be a part of a society’s identity?” Whether it ought to be a part of a society is the issue I posed. Given the fantasy thinking that religion is composed of, and given its historical track record throughout the world, my answer is a clear “no.” So, even though religion has been a part of all societies in the past, it does not mean that we ought to embrace it and continue down its malicious path.

I would also propose that cancer and diabetes have also always been a part of every society. However, ought we embrace them? Ought they be a part of society? If so, then all research on cancer and diabetes treatments should cease.

Man has conquered polio and smallpox. Someday, he will conquer cancer and diabetes. Some day, even further down the road, he will also conquer religion.

Quote:
Recently, all modern/advanced countries have chosen a secular system, however, at the same time, there is religious freedom, meaning, people can worship what they want, or don’t want.


The reason that most modern countries have chosen a secular system is because they have experienced the pitfalls of religious intervention in government. Most countries at some time in their past have had a taste of theocracy. The European countries are no exception. During medieval times, Christianity’s grip was just as malicious as is today’s Islam. Through religious persecution and through advancement of free-thinking and science these European countries finally came to the conclusion that religion ought to stay private and out of the public domain and government.

Incidentally, one of the first nations to adopt secularism into its newly formed state, the US, did so because of its experience with religion. The reason that the pilgrims and other immigrants came to the New World was to escape the religious persecution of Europe. They experienced the disaster of religion mixing with government, and when they finally forged their own nation, they made a clear implementation of a secular government.

When you cite the example that secular governments allow for personal freedom of religion, and everyone is free to practice whatever he wants, that is not contrary to what I say. Of course, in a secular government, all must be free to practice whatever religion they wish and believe whatever they wish. In fact, that is the definition of a secular government. If all were not free to believe whatever they wanted, this would imply that the government was partial to one particular religious agenda, and therefore such a government could not be considered as secular, since it is mixing itself up with religious practices.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me to mean that a secular government is one that promotes the extinction of all religions. That is very removed from what constitutes a secular government. A secular government is one that promotes religious equality for all its constituents, gives no preference to one form of religion over another, and fights to uphold the idea that religious beliefs must be private matters and thus bans the imposition of any particular religious ideology in public domains, especially in the government. If the members wish to be devil worshipers, or Christians, or Muslims, or Agnostics, or worshipers of Zeus, they are free to do so, as long as they do not wish to interject it into government or public places where others are forced to listen to it.

I hope that my explanation of a secular government was adequate.

Quote:
To me, “Khoda” as part of trinity, only represents the freedom of religion, for people to worship whatever they want. It does not mean that certain religion represents Iran or its constitution.


I am very glad about the meaning you have given to the term Khoda. If your definition of God is “freedom of religion for all,” then I have no argument against that. However, my prior comments were not directed at your particular beliefs or disbeliefs regarding God, but at the general consensus. To the majority of people that mix up God with Iran, it is a very literal interpretation of God that they interject into the state. It is that majority to whom my comments apply.

Quote:
I don’t know what Mr. Bayagan meant by “living manifestation of the past” this is something you need to verify with him, since I do not accept your interpretation of his sentence.


I don’t think I care enough about him or his thinking for me to go track him down to ask what he meant exactly. However, as I have cited a handful of historical examples of the term “living manifestation” throughout an expanse of various cultures and epochs, it would seem that there is a pretty good understanding in this world when such a term is used. It has always implied the same thing, whether in Egypt, Greece, Japan, Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia, Arabia, or Iran. I doubt that the interpretation I have assigned it is incorrect, since the same interpretation has always been attached to it everywhere else.

Quote:
Meaning of Shah is self evident. If you are a republican it is meaningless to you-- although I see that at the end of each of your postings you use a king’s name, Darius… I am the King of Kings etc. etc. which is ironic!


Indeed, I do think that a republic is a better form of government than a monarchy. However, I am not here to debate the merits of a republic, and I see the issue as somewhat premature at this stage, when Iran is still captive to a theocracy. I think that the time to really get into such a debate is when Iran is free, or its freedom is imminent, and the people of Iran must decide on a form of government. At that point, I will get into a detailed discussion on the matter. Prior to that, the only merit I see in it is in mental exercise. The demerit I see in such a premature debate is that it will drive a wedge between those that believe in a republic and those that believe in a monarchy. In fact, I see such wedges drawn out between members of different political parties everyday, whereby it becomes more important than the issue of freeing Iran. That is the real travesty. A lack of unity, because of the petty bickering over issues that at the present time are meaningless.

The term Shah is not meaningless to me. I am fully aware of what it means. I am aware of its benefits, as well as its shortfalls.

As far as my signature, you are correct that at the end of my posts there is that quotation referring to Dariush and the King of Kings. However, I see no irony with it. That statement is one that was carved into the side of a mountain (now referred to as Naqshe Rostam) some 2500 years ago to commemorate one of Iran’s greatest leaders and champions, Dariush the Great. I take pride in Iran’s history and national identity. A part of that identity is the Achaemenid Dynasty, and Dariush the Great. I therefore pay homage to him, the Achaemenids, and Naqshe Rostam with each post I place, by repeating Dariush the Great’s key sentence identifying himself to the world. Part of that identification is his mention of “King of Kings.” As you know, the ancient Iranian Kings referred to themselves as King of Kings. It is merely of historical context at this point. I am not going to edit out such statements in historical records, or their historical significance, simply because I don’t think that monarchy is the best form of government in the modern age.

I hope you see now why there is no contradiction or irony in the fact that I make reference to the key identifying statement by Dariush and the fact that I do not promote monarchies.

Quote:
In a dire situation that Iran is now for the past 29 years, what we need, is the pride and that symbol that connects us to our past history which has been destroyed by islam & islamist.


I say that we are stronger than that, to need symbols such as kings to connect us to our magnificent pre-islamic past. However, if a symbol is needed, why not think of the hundreds of ancient archaeological sites of Iran, Appadana, the Cyrus Cylinder, Naqshe Rostam, Behistun Inscription, etc?

Quote:
If there is going to be a monarchy in Iran it would be a secular democratic one, similar to Sweden, Japan, Spain & most other European countries. So, I disagree with your interpretation of what a “king” means to our country.


Perhaps you misunderstood. I was not commenting on what a king indeed means to our country. I was commenting on what the author was saying a king means to our country. I certainly do not think that a king ought to mean what the author was implying. That is, a “living manifestation” of Iranian civilization. Deification of a person is dangerous, no matter whom that person happens to be.

Quote:
A republic does not automatically guarantee secularism, and unfortunately, I look around and see that just about every republic in the Middle East, is a debacle.


There have been many “republics” in history that have been putrid. However, more often than not, that’s because those examples were not true republics. They were only republic in name. A republic that is under totalitarian rule is not really a republic. It is a dictatorship. Technically, if you believe the name, then Iran is currently a republic (Islamic Republic). China is a republic (Republic of China), etc. What’s in a name, if it is false? A republic must be free, so that the public can represent itself. If not, it was never a republic. The same is true for the Middle Eastern republics you mention. They are dictatorships with the name republic attached in order to justify them.

Nonetheless, I do not propose that a republic is the only means to a nation’s well being, and I would gladly accept a constitutional monarchy that is truly democratic, if the majority of Iranians willed it so. I see no malice in a democratic government that wishes to keep figureheads of royalty that have no real power. I wouldn’t promote it, because I see no benefit in it. However, if most wish to have it, I would not oppose it.

If in a free Iran, after a thorough debate of form of government has been undertaken, the majority of Iranians vote for a constitutional monarchy, I’ll accept that and call it a day. However, in reality, I highly doubt that day will ever materialize. That’s because I think that the majority of Iranians are done with any form of monarchy and want to move on from it. I think that most Iranians want a democratic government without link to a monarchy. Regardless, that’s a matter for a later day.

Quote:
Somehow, you have equated monarchy to islam and superstitious behavior, which is totally opposite of what the monarchists that I know, want for Iran’s future.


I’m not sure why you would say that. It certainly isn’t true. I do not link monarchy with islam and superstition. My comments were in response to that author. He, it would seem, does link monarchy and kings with superstition and islam, as he clearly mixes religion, spirituality, and God with King, Iran, and nation. That is the mistake that I don’t want to see happen. I don’t think that monarchy itself, or all monarchists share his beliefs. However, I would oppose those that do any day.

Like I said, the claims that he was making about the Shah were ones that I don’t think the Shah himself ever made. Had the Shah behaved in a manner that this author suggests, I would not have held as high an opinion of him as I do.

In conclusion, even though I said a lot, there are two points that I wish to convey more than anything else.

1. No person needs to be deified or seen as anything other than another normal human being. To do otherwise is not only deleterious to the worshiper, but also the worshiped.

2. Any state that wishes to promote equality, justice, the welfare of its citizens, and its own success must accept a secular form of government, and keep religion out of the public domain of the nation and restrict it to the Church / Mosque or home. Without secularism, freedom cannot exist.

Quote:
God Bless Iran
Khoda negahdare Iran


In reality, may Amir (and others like him) Bless Iran, because so far God has done a real shitty job of it.


Dear Amir:
The feeling is mutual; I do have a great deal of respect for your opinion and have read most everything you have posted on this site, though I may not fully agree with some of your views.
Back to the word Khoda....you are right that the universal interpretation is a supreme power. However, I hope each individual find their own special meaning in that word. My father sees that as Khod/ aa(gaah) he sees that word as the ‘conscience’ of each individual so in a way when you say “Amir blesses Iran”, you have the same interpretation of Khoda, as my father. My mother views the word as a good Spirit. And I see it both, as individual conscience, spirit, and representation of a person's belief.
In terms of monarchy, I understand, it is premature to talk about it. However, as an educated person you may intellectualize that a symbol does not/cannot connect you to the past, nevertheless, for an average, uneducated (or with very little education) and very emotional Iranians, everything counts…from the lion on the flag to the word king- the father of the country. I believe nothing can unite people more than a king since he/she does not have any political affiliation, nor is he defined by his/her ethnic background.I think Spanish people were extremely smart. They have the advantage of a republic & monarchy! They decided they wanted King Carlos back, because of their history and culture, at the same time they elect the president of the council who runs the political agendas of their country.
With monarchy one can have the independent political body such as president (Spain) or prime minister (Japan), and preserve historical traditions, so as they say; you can have your cake and eat it too! However, with republic, part of our history and tradition will be wiped out, and that is unacceptable to many people.
Neither one of us at this point is going to convince the other, and will have to agree that we disagree!

God protect Iran
Khoda Negahbaane Iran


Last edited by blank on Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer:

Quote:
I often wonder what would happen if Reza Pahlavi, instead of saying "Let the people decide." (regarding any future return of royalty to the halls of power in Iran) , simply made the decision for them and said, " The time has come for the Iranian people to move beyond their current circumstance, nor is it for me to wish them to restore the past, as I've moved beyond any attachment to rule over them, or of restoring the position my family once enjoyed, even be it ceremonial in nature. Thus, it is my duty simply as Iranian, to help prepare their inevitable transition to a truly democratic and honorable system of government."


I think that such a hypothetical statement from him would only help his popularity as well as the common goal of all Iranians. I think that part of the reason that he has not yet gained a stronger following is because most Iranians are a bit suspicious of his motives. That is, whether he is motivated in part by personal gain of elevation to a royal position or not. Whether or not his motives are purely altruistic or not, I don’t think anyone can really say for sure. However, if he came out and clearly denounced a royal claim, and simply proclaimed himself an Iranian that wished to free his nation as any other Iranian does, then he might prove more effective than he has so far. Anyways, that’s my opinion, though I realize that others would disagree.

With respect to your comments, I am reminded of a famous phrase that has stuck with me. At the end of the American Revolutionary War, George Washington was presented the opportunity to become “ruler for life.” Of course, he admirably declined, and said this:

“I did not fight this war to replace one King George with another.”

In fact, he believed this concept so strongly that at the end of his second term as president, he declined to run for president again, thereby self-limiting the length of a person’s rule over the nation. Surely, had he wanted to do so, the American public would have elected and re-elected him to President for as long as he lived. One will note that in the US Constitution at the time there was no limit to how long a president could remain in power, so long as he kept getting the votes.

Because of Washington’s example, all subsequent presidents until FDR followed the self-imposed two-term maximum, even though legally they were not required to do so. The only exceptions were Grant and Teddy Roosevelt, who tried to get a third term, but were both unsuccessful. It wasn’t until Franklin D Roosevelt that a president actually wanted to and was successful in attaining more than a two-term election. Subsequent to his desire and success, the unwritten rule was made into a written rule, which became known as the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Anyways, I say this because I hold much admiration for Washington’s refusal to become King George, even though the opportunity was there.


Blank:

First of all, it sounds like you have a wise father.

Second, with regard to Iranians needing a monarch becasue they have certain emotional attachments and lower education, let me say this. I understand that many Iranians have perhaps unjustified emotional needs due to limited access to educational development and thought expansion. However, I reiterate my initial assertion regarding religion. That simply because the state of affairs have always been in a dismal situation does not mean that we ought to accept such a state, and incorporate it in our lives and our future.

A fact remains that part of the reason we are in this mess is because of religion, and because of limited intellectual development of Iranians, and because of irrational emotional needs, and because of blind tradition. Many things need to be changed in Iran and within Iranians, if we hope to achieve the Iran that Iran deserves. Me must make an effort to change, and carry such change to the many Iranians that need it most.

Third, I appreciate your comments. In fact, it was never my intent to change your mind regarding what form of government will be ideal for the future Iran. The reason why I even began this discussion had everything to do with secularism - which the author of that article, (Reza Bayegan, not Sohrab Ferdows) - seemed to be undermining, and nothing to do with monarchy or republic.

I have my own idea, and you have yours, and even though I think my idea is better, I do not have a big problem with a ceremonial, constitutional monarchy, if the Iranian people wish it.

I suppose that at the end, you and I are just extrapolating what we each deem as the best system to what we think other Iranians also want. Again, we won’t have the answer to that question until the fall of this regime. At that point, the Iranians will speak, and it will be settled. Truly, though I have preference of one over the other, either one will make me happy, so long as Iranians enjoy a true democracy, absolute secularism (separation of religion and state), and individual liberty, equality, and freedom.

I only wish that the day would arrive that our bickering was concerned with what form of government would be best to replace the collapsed Islamic Republic. I live in anticipation of such a day.

Let me now, before wrapping up, return to the title of this thread, from which it seems we have somewhat deviated. I believe that in the present, a re-evaluation of history has shown more and more what good leaders both Pahlavis were indeed, and they are in the process of receiving their due recognition from history. Let me say that personally, I admire them because of the leadership they provided, not simply because they were kings of Iran. Throughout history, we have had kings that were good, others that were mediocre, and still others that were terrible. It is my belief that the Pahlavis (and the older more than the younger) were a couple of good ones. I judge them based on their individual merits, not the title they held.

In any case, thank you for your comments and your honest exchange.

Until next time, my friend.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think that such a hypothetical statement from him would only help his popularity as well as the common goal of all Iranians. I think that part of the reason that he has not yet gained a stronger following is because most Iranians are a bit suspicious of his motives. That is, whether he is motivated in part by personal gain of elevation to a royal position or not. Whether or not his motives are purely altruistic or not, I don’t think anyone can really say for sure. However, if he came out and clearly denounced a royal claim, and simply proclaimed himself an Iranian that wished to free his nation as any other Iranian does, then he might prove more effective than he has so far. Anyways, that’s my opinion, though I realize that others would disagree.

With respect to your comments, I am reminded of a famous phrase that has stuck with me. At the end of the American Revolutionary War, George Washington was presented the opportunity to become “ruler for life.” Of course, he admirably declined, and said this:

“I did not fight this war to replace one King George with another.”

-Amir




I for one could never quite understand why anyone would want to be President of the USA, but with respect to George W (the first), and Zahir Shah, the context is different, but the spirit's the same.

It would be logical for the results to be as you have assesed and for the reasons cited as factors of public influence in Iran.

Noting as well Blank's heartfelt comments regarding the up-side to a constitutional monarchy....I would also add in my own assesment of the results of the hypothetical renunciation of the throne that there may indeed be much knashing of teeth and pulling of hair among his supporters should Reza pull the plug on their hopes.

Question is, would they realize that were that to happen, that in a post mullah-run Iran....there would then be no argument or debate as to form of government to hang-up, or stall progress by creating a topic of division among the population?

My contention being that such transition to truly democratic state of affairs should be as fast and as simply achieved as possible, while pre-empting possible cause of disunity in that national process of political renassance where possible.

In fact, for Reza to truly become "father" of a new Iran, I believe that is exactly what he must do.

Sorry Blank, I know you don't want to hear that, but I have long assesed the circumstance and must agree with Amir on this point.

Regards,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:
Oppenheimer:

Quote:
I often wonder what would happen if Reza Pahlavi, instead of saying "Let the people decide." (regarding any future return of royalty to the halls of power in Iran) , simply made the decision for them and said, " The time has come for the Iranian people to move beyond their current circumstance, nor is it for me to wish them to restore the past, as I've moved beyond any attachment to rule over them, or of restoring the position my family once enjoyed, even be it ceremonial in nature. Thus, it is my duty simply as Iranian, to help prepare their inevitable transition to a truly democratic and honorable system of government."


I think that such a hypothetical statement from him would only help his popularity as well as the common goal of all Iranians. I think that part of the reason that he has not yet gained a stronger following is because most Iranians are a bit suspicious of his motives. That is, whether he is motivated in part by personal gain of elevation to a royal position or not. Whether or not his motives are purely altruistic or not, I don’t think anyone can really say for sure. However, if he came out and clearly denounced a royal claim, and simply proclaimed himself an Iranian that wished to free his nation as any other Iranian does, then he might prove more effective than he has so far. Anyways, that’s my opinion, though I realize that others would disagree.

With respect to your comments, I am reminded of a famous phrase that has stuck with me. At the end of the American Revolutionary War, George Washington was presented the opportunity to become “ruler for life.” Of course, he admirably declined, and said this:

“I did not fight this war to replace one King George with another.”

In fact, he believed this concept so strongly that at the end of his second term as president, he declined to run for president again, thereby self-limiting the length of a person’s rule over the nation. Surely, had he wanted to do so, the American public would have elected and re-elected him to President for as long as he lived. One will note that in the US Constitution at the time there was no limit to how long a president could remain in power, so long as he kept getting the votes.

Because of Washington’s example, all subsequent presidents until FDR followed the self-imposed two-term maximum, even though legally they were not required to do so. The only exceptions were Grant and Teddy Roosevelt, who tried to get a third term, but were both unsuccessful. It wasn’t until Franklin D Roosevelt that a president actually wanted to and was successful in attaining more than a two-term election. Subsequent to his desire and success, the unwritten rule was made into a written rule, which became known as the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Anyways, I say this because I hold much admiration for Washington’s refusal to become King George, even though the opportunity was there.


Blank:

First of all, it sounds like you have a wise father.

Second, with regard to Iranians needing a monarch becasue they have certain emotional attachments and lower education, let me say this. I understand that many Iranians have perhaps unjustified emotional needs due to limited access to educational development and thought expansion. However, I reiterate my initial assertion regarding religion. That simply because the state of affairs have always been in a dismal situation does not mean that we ought to accept such a state, and incorporate it in our lives and our future.

A fact remains that part of the reason we are in this mess is because of religion, and because of limited intellectual development of Iranians, and because of irrational emotional needs, and because of blind tradition. Many things need to be changed in Iran and within Iranians, if we hope to achieve the Iran that Iran deserves. Me must make an effort to change, and carry such change to the many Iranians that need it most.

Third, I appreciate your comments. In fact, it was never my intent to change your mind regarding what form of government will be ideal for the future Iran. The reason why I even began this discussion had everything to do with secularism - which the author of that article, (Reza Bayegan, not Sohrab Ferdows) - seemed to be undermining, and nothing to do with monarchy or republic.

I have my own idea, and you have yours, and even though I think my idea is better, I do not have a big problem with a ceremonial, constitutional monarchy, if the Iranian people wish it.

I suppose that at the end, you and I are just extrapolating what we each deem as the best system to what we think other Iranians also want. Again, we won’t have the answer to that question until the fall of this regime. At that point, the Iranians will speak, and it will be settled. Truly, though I have preference of one over the other, either one will make me happy, so long as Iranians enjoy a true democracy, absolute secularism (separation of religion and state), and individual liberty, equality, and freedom.

I only wish that the day would arrive that our bickering was concerned with what form of government would be best to replace the collapsed Islamic Republic. I live in anticipation of such a day.

Let me now, before wrapping up, return to the title of this thread, from which it seems we have somewhat deviated. I believe that in the present, a re-evaluation of history has shown more and more what good leaders both Pahlavis were indeed, and they are in the process of receiving their due recognition from history. Let me say that personally, I admire them because of the leadership they provided, not simply because they were kings of Iran. Throughout history, we have had kings that were good, others that were mediocre, and still others that were terrible. It is my belief that the Pahlavis (and the older more than the younger) were a couple of good ones. I judge them based on their individual merits, not the title they held.

In any case, thank you for your comments and your honest exchange.

Until next time, my friend.


Amir:
Thanks for your comment, my father is the wisest man I ever met (just a personal prejudice!) and he is for a republic for Iran! Something we disagree on.
There is no argument or disagreement about the secularism; so I am not sure what is the purpose of your clarification of this matter to me. After this republic, I believe Iranians are inoculated against religion in general and islam in particular. Maybe something so violent needed to happen to change people’s belief.
Presidents and prime ministers come and go, a king or as you call it a “figure head” is a stable force for our nation, and whether you believe it or not, Iranians are very proud of their ancestors and history & tradition. “Blind tradition” as you put it, can be good or bad; Norooze, Charshanbeh soori, and all the rest of the ceremonies, and traditions we have been practicing for years blindly, are good, and we all enjoy those customs. However, Islamic influence has been negative, superstitious, and demoralizing.
I do hope Iranians like Spanish people would make a wise choice and decide not to throw away part of our heritage, because it is the most suitable form of government for us, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
I disagree very much with your assessment of Crown Prince. You said “I think that such a hypothetical statement from him would only help his popularity as well as the common goal of all Iranians I believe that such a hypothetical statement, is betrayal of his sworn obligation towards his fellow countrymen. Moreover, not only it does not promote his popularity and “common goal of all Iranians”, on the contrary, it causes friction and a sense of betrayal of trust, among people that believe in his role as a king. When his father died, I believe it was in Morocco he was sworn in as a new king. It would be extremely irresponsible of him to just simply say “I don’t want to do it, because certain percentage of Iranian population prefers a republic as a form of government”!!! It is one thing that our nation, like Spain, decides what form of government we would like to have, it is another thing that Reza Pahlavi, abandon his countrymen and back out of his sworn statement and obligations toward his nation. It is your personal opinion that "most Iranians are suspicious of his motives". Not the Iranians I have met, becasue over and over Reza Pahlavi has said, it is never about me, it is about Iran, whatever form of government people of Iran elect, It will be fine with me, as long as it is a secular democratic form of government. That is pretty plain and simple, I cannot understand what part of that statement would make people "a bit suspicious"!!
Take care my friend...
Cheers


Last edited by blank on Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:54 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It would be extremely irresponsible of him to just simply say “I don’t want to do it, because certain percentage of Iranian population prefers a republic as a form of government”!!! It is one thing that our nation, like Spain, decides what form of government we would like to have, it is another thing that Reza Pahlavi, abandon his countrymen and back out of his sworn statement and obligations toward his nation.


In no way was anyone inplying he should "abandon" his people Blank, my hypothetical question was what would the result be if he were to make the people's choice for them.....is that not leadership?

Far from abandoning anything, those who are loyal to him, seeing an opportunity for an unencumbered Iranian to speak his mind, without a visible agenda other than to facilitate a transition to freedom, nothing detracts from his ability to be a moral compass for the Iranian people, or his ability to inspire.

That is exactly what leadership is about.....not title, nor family position. That's just fluff.

Tradition on the other hand is something that (as in Afghanistan's loya jirga) can indeed survive political transition,....obviosly, as the Mullah's boot can't stop festival, or celebration.....

In some eyes Blank, the sins of the father cast a shadow over the son, and that's I think what Amir was referring to.

Thus, there is only one way possible to re-invent himself to be able to achive the goals that he wants to achieve for his people, all Iranians, not just his loyal constituancy.

Does his title matter more than Freedom or a unified effort to remove the mullahs? If it were to stand in the way of achieving freedom, I think he'd chuck it in the dustbin of history in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't say that unless I respected him as a person, fully capable of doing so if he felt it would better serve the intrests of Iran.

Regards,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toofaan



Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear friends,

It is obvious that there is a division in views on "what is best for Iran" which shows all sides at least have the same wishes for the nation and that is to accommodate future progress and prosperity along with political stability. Is this really enough? It is true that all of us tend to get carried away when deeply involved with an issue that we have strong feelings towards them. In my view, the secret of success is in fact how much control we can exercise over this matter.

As far as the "shape" of the system, to me personally, the "content" is more important than the "container" itself! And again to me this sounds very logical in this day and age to insist on separation of religion and state while understanding strong role of religion in societies in the past and present time. Let's not forget that most celebrated events in the world originate from and symbolize the people's religious beliefs which means even though we are living in a predominantly secular world but religion remains a very important part of day to day life in every society.

Plato in his "The Republic" quotes Socrates on tendency to corruption by power concluding that ruling should be left to philosophers. Considering the simplicity of social structure at that time and assuming that all societies would have some philosophers (or wiser people) whose advice would be followed by others, we may accept that could be a viable solution. However, that theory like many others, although very logical but it is also very far from practical. The most basic issue here is that how would a society determine who is/are the philosopher/s and that would bring a whole lot of other issues with it which up to this day, there is no solution in sight for them!

One of the most important issues with attempting to resolve problems of human societies by "new theories" has been negligence towards the human "factor itself". While many of these theories look perfect on the paper (ie: Marxism) and sound nice but history has proved that their failures have been far greater than their achievements. When Socrates was talking about "tendency to corruption by power", he probably had not seen many other negative qualities that a man can have and how candidates for running a society can manipulate the public through TV!

To make a long story short, there is no perfect way to run any society! All systems are totally dependent on the level of good or bad qualities that the building components of that system have. Any system can be affected by corruption because it is a "human quality" and it is not because of "power" alone! We can make our system more resistant to corruption and more just by creation of multy level of interdependent authorities which have to work with each other. In my view, both Constitutional Monarchy and Republic have this capability but the key is how one can fit cultural background and fulfill the needs of a society! Democracy is not equal to a republic system! There is only one interpretation for democracy and that is democracy itself!

A Constitutional Monarchy can provide whatever a Republic system can offer to society and even more. A constitutional Monarch can be a pillar to stability and continuity of a nation and state without compromising the essence of democracy in the absence of any government and in sensitive times. I personally believe a Constitutional Monarchy fits a lot better than a Republic system for Iran but in my opinion, Prince Reza Pahlavi is right in leaving this matter in the hands of Iranian people to decide.

Please remember that, no matter the shape of the system, it is the material which make the system and how it works that count! We need the right material before anything else! arguing about "how it should look like" is pointless and just a waste of time! Democratic institutions like a "Parliament" are just made of humans! We need to learn that protection and preserving these institutions, with all their humanly flaws, is in our own interests and in direction of our own protection! We need to learn to believe in democracy and not just talk about it! and we need to understand that even the most democratic systems are not perfect and not completely just. Prefectionism has no meaning in politics.

Dear Oppenheimer, thank you for your comment and I hope that I have answered your question.


Best regards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toofaan wrote:
Dear friends,

It is obvious that there is a division in views on "what is best for Iran" which shows all sides at least have the same wishes for the nation and that is to accommodate future progress and prosperity along with political stability. Is this really enough? It is true that all of us tend to get carried away when deeply involved with an issue that we have strong feelings towards them. In my view, the secret of success is in fact how much control we can exercise over this matter.

As far as the "shape" of the system, to me personally, the "content" is more important than the "container" itself! And again to me this sounds very logical in this day and age to insist on separation of religion and state while understanding strong role of religion in societies in the past and present time. Let's not forget that most celebrated events in the world originate from and symbolize the people's religious beliefs which means even though we are living in a predominantly secular world but religion remains a very important part of day to day life in every society.

Plato in his "The Republic" quotes Socrates on tendency to corruption by power concluding that ruling should be left to philosophers. Considering the simplicity of social structure at that time and assuming that all societies would have some philosophers (or wiser people) whose advice would be followed by others, we may accept that could be a viable solution. However, that theory like many others, although very logical but it is also very far from practical. The most basic issue here is that how would a society determine who is/are the philosopher/s and that would bring a whole lot of other issues with it which up to this day, there is no solution in sight for them!

One of the most important issues with attempting to resolve problems of human societies by "new theories" has been negligence towards the human "factor itself". While many of these theories look perfect on the paper (ie: Marxism) and sound nice but history has proved that their failures have been far greater than their achievements. When Socrates was talking about "tendency to corruption by power", he probably had not seen many other negative qualities that a man can have and how candidates for running a society can manipulate the public through TV!

To make a long story short, there is no perfect way to run any society! All systems are totally dependent on the level of good or bad qualities that the building components of that system have. Any system can be affected by corruption because it is a "human quality" and it is not because of "power" alone! We can make our system more resistant to corruption and more just by creation of multy level of interdependent authorities which have to work with each other. In my view, both Constitutional Monarchy and Republic have this capability but the key is how one can fit cultural background and fulfill the needs of a society! Democracy is not equal to a republic system! There is only one interpretation for democracy and that is democracy itself!

A Constitutional Monarchy can provide whatever a Republic system can offer to society and even more. A constitutional Monarch can be a pillar to stability and continuity of a nation and state without compromising the essence of democracy in the absence of any government and in sensitive times. I personally believe a Constitutional Monarchy fits a lot better than a Republic system for Iran but in my opinion, Prince Reza Pahlavi is right in leaving this matter in the hands of Iranian people to decide.

Please remember that, no matter the shape of the system, it is the material which make the system and how it works that count! We need the right material before anything else! arguing about "how it should look like" is pointless and just a waste of time! Democratic institutions like a "Parliament" are just made of humans! We need to learn that protection and preserving these institutions, with all their humanly flaws, is in our own interests and in direction of our own protection! We need to learn to believe in democracy and not just talk about it! and we need to understand that even the most democratic systems are not perfect and not completely just. Prefectionism has no meaning in politics.

Dear Oppenheimer, thank you for your comment and I hope that I have answered your question.


Best regards


Dear Toofan:
I agree with your statement. I have seen people trying to compare our history with the U.S. which is a geat fallacy. For one thing US does not have the 5000 years of history, second, the only experience US has had with monarchy has been as a colony of the Britts.
Most democratic and advanced countries in Europe have kept their monarchy. And then I look at the two most powerful republics in the world, and they're nothing but a dictatorship, Russia & China...I believe the first step in every democracy should be the Bill of Rights... I do hope our more experienced compatriots will look into it, and start working on it.


Last edited by blank on Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:17 pm    Post subject: Secularism Key To Our Unity for Today and Tomorrow Reply with quote

Secularism Key To Our Unity for Today and Tomorrow

It becomes very clear from all posts in this thread and other threads in the ActivistChat open forum that the Secularism is considered as the most essential component of democracy by over 95% of ActivistChat members and key to our unity for today and tomorrow.

- If we all agree that Secularism is the key to our unity then the real question will be which system of government can deliver more stable secular democracy in Iran within short period of time after regime change ( The Constitutional Monarchy or Republic system )?

- Should we evaluate the Greatness of any Leadership relative to their contributions to Secularism?


What is Secularism ?
ActivistChat Definition of Secularism and Democracy is similar to the Iranian Scholar Professor Esmail Nooriala Farsi lecture. Secularism in current usage is generally complete separation of Government from Religion and any Ideology (i.e Marxism). Democracy without Secularism and Secular Parties has only one time usage as we had seen from Nazi Party , Khomenist (Tazi) In Iran and very recently by Islamist Hamas Party in Palestine and repeated many times in past history in many countries

No religious Parties should be allowed in true secular system of government. US constitution is considered as a Secular Document.



How strong Secularism movement in Iran, USA, Israel and Europe?
From all the data that I have seen the Secularism movement in Iran and Israel are very strong and the Secularism movement in USA is growing very fast. The Iranian people, the youth of Israel and Elites of USA (10% of 300 million people) are virtually united on Secularism and they will influence major changes in future.

Secular Astronomer wrote:
Must Watch Secular Quotes From Brilliant Minds By Secular Astronomer

SecularAstronomer wrote:
Themes:
skepticism is good
religion is illogical
religion is dangerous


"The wisdom from these great thinkers is a precious gift. To ignore their intellectual contribution, is to risk stalling the progress they hoped to foster."

The Quotes From Brilliant Minds:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
--Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
--Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--Carl Sagan (1934-1997)

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ibid., p. 226
--Galileo Galilei (1564--1642)

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."
--Stephen Hawking (1942-present)

"Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most serious and significant occupation of his sojourn in the world."
--John Burroughs (1837-1921)

"If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life."
--Albert Camus (1913-1960)

"Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction--faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
--Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

"And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."
--Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
--Richard Dawkins (1941-persent)

"Man... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea." Letters from the Earth
--Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain (1835-1910)

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice"
--Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power."
--Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

"It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."
--Gloria Steinem (1934-present)

"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously."
--Douglas Adams (1952-2001)

"I can't embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages. And that persecution still goes on today all over the world."
--Amanda Donohoe (1962-present)

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window."
--Stephen King (1947-persent)

"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine."
--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

"It is usually when men are at their most religious that they behave with the least sense and the greatest cruelty."
--Ilka Chase (1900-1978)

"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as The Dark Ages."
--Ruth Hurmence Green (1915-1981)

"Religion is a byproduct of fear... For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?"
--Arthur C. Clarke (1917-present)




"The wisdom from these great thinkers is a precious gift. To ignore their intellectual contribution, is to risk stalling the progress they hoped to foster."

SecularAstronomer (1987-) and websnarf (1969-), YouTube Atheists.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1muSY1Jwjo

___________________________________________

Watch FoxNews Is America becoming more secular? Part 1



_____________________________________________________

We are not alone. What Do You Think Of The Following Sites?
the Secular Coalition for America
wrote:

1- Mission Statement
The mission of the Secular Coalition for America is to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all.
http://www.secular.org/about.html


Secular Student Alliance wrote:
2- Secular Student Alliance
The mission of the Secular Student Alliance is to organize, unite, educate, and serve students and student communities that promote the ideals of scientific and critical inquiry, democracy, secularism, and human based ethics.


First Freedom First wrote:
3- What is First Freedom First?


Secular Web wrote:


Quote:

_____________________________________________________

Quote:
Darwin's Conflict with His Wife and God
Published: 8/5/2007
Darwin was clear in his heart and mind that man was an evolved ape rather than a fallen angel and that life could be understood without divine revelations, but as far as his wife's feelings were concerned he could not change her mind and heart, and had to live with that conflict and sadness all his life. The pain he experienced is evident from the note that was found at the bottom of his wife's letter.


____________________________________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group