[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Azadeh_55]

[American Visitor]

Azadeh_55,

So far as I can tell, everything in your post makes perfect sense. I agree with you. My concern was the post by the person called Eternal1. The blanket attack against all religions made by Eternal1 is a mistake in my opinion. I have known zoroastrians myself and think that would serve well as a template for a restored Persian culture. To try to produce a completely irreligious society is probably impossible since many people seem to have an absolute need to believe in the transcendent. Besides that there is quite a bit of evidence that they just may be right.

I agree with you that Islam is probably the largest obsticle to progress in Iran. Islam has major flaws which would be difficult to correct even by progressive free thinkers.
1. One is the idea that the final word was given over 1000 years ago and there is no way to make major corrections now. That limits the progress which is needed for religions to evolve as we learn more about nature and about ourselves and how to form a better society.
2. Another is that Islam does not recognize the separation of church and state and denies people the freedom to choose to believe or not to believe or even to change to another religion all together.
3. Islam doesn't appear to have much to say directing me to love other people and to value them just because they are fellow humans but rather seems to direct me to value them based on how much use they can be to me.
4. Finally Islam is based on "submission" as you have noted which inhibits creativity. Submission implies setting aside one's own ideas and own needs to serve the ideas and needs of someone else.

I respect folks like 9karevatan who are trying to repair and reform Islam, and wish them the best. The question in my mind is whether there is enough basis in Islam itself to make those types of reforms or whether it is better to move on to something which already has a more positive point from which to start. That is a decision which each person will have to make for themselves, however the status quo is totally unacceptable and changes must be made. The Persians had a viable culture before the Arab invasion and that would seem to be a natural starting point in the restoration.

[Azadeh_55]

You are trying to jump from A to Z in one step. We aren't rid of Islam yet and you are already talking about replacing it with a different religion. I do not see many devout Muslims who want to turn to another religion. I see a lot of angry former Muslims who don't want to have anything to do with any religion. Now maybe in 20, 50 or 100 years these people will turn to other religions like Christianity or Zoroastrianism or they might remain irreligious forever; but it's too soon to even talk about that now. And it's not even relavant to our problems. It doesn't matter whether they want to practice Zoroastrianism or Bahaism or Hinduism, Judaism, Satanism, Witchcraft, or Woodoo, or if they want to be hardcore atheists; so long as they don't strap bombs to themselves or cut off people's limbs.

[American Visitor]

Azadeh_55,

I agree with you. To impose a different religion of any sort would be wrong. To have a transitional non-religious government which has democracy and freedom is clearly the first step. It will take time for people who have been so deeply betrayed to recover the ability to trust again.

What percentage of Iranians do you think are still devout Muslims at this point?

[American Visitor]

My point is, the Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are also victims and shouldn't be lumped together and condemned with the Islamists. They have lived under second class status and persecuted for generations and deserve a break.

As to why people fell for propaganda, part of it is because people believed the Islamists were telling the truth. Why shouldn't one be able to believe religious leaders? They have been betrayed.

Probably one ot the most damaging propaganda tools is the use of conspiracy theories. I understand many Europeans believe the US government and the Jews brought down the World Trade Center so they could generate sympahty for our wars of agression against peaceful Islamists. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are apparently still widely read and embraced. The theory that George Bush sent our troops into Iraq to steal their oil has been repeated by no less than Nelson Mandella. Just two days ago I was told by a man from Northern Europe that the attack on the Russian school was staged by the Putin government to justify planned atrocities in Chechnya where once again they planned to attack peaceful Muslims.

Conspiracy theories are wonderful propaganda tools since the one making up the theory can make any outrageous claim he wishes without the necessity of offering any evidence to support the claim whatsoever. After all it is a conspiracy and so the information being shared is unproveable. What is interesting is that in every conspiracy no matter how dark or secret, one person seems to have complete access to the inner workings of the plot and can explain it all to you in detail.

And of course the conspiracy theories are indeed based on dark evil conspiracys. The perpetrators of the theory themselves are the actual conspirators who are trying to smear another person or group without the need to gather evidence or document anything. Conspiracy theories are wonderful tools in the hands of those who wish to harm others.

[Kid Einstein]

Here's my two cents on this whole religion thingy...

See more people agnostic? The point is that it is becoming a trend that more and more people realize that religion should be kept private, personal and individual, and not like the IRI, who constantly tries to shove the spitting image of Imam Hossein down peoples' throats.

Even though religion cannot really be called "religion" if not spread out, I think it's more sane to realize that faith in various religions is better kept private.

There are two keystones into accomplishing this, and that is "respect" and to have an "open mind". These are fitting terms, but they can also contradict the whole meaning of keeping religion in private...

Why? Because in order to "respect" and to have an "open mind" that requires the religions to be quite public. Like women wearing headscarves (Please, don't... I know that it's mainly a cultural thing, but I know that religion has had a finger in the game as well) or sikh men wearing colourful turbans...

We will always have different opinions, because humans are after all individuals with personal motives, etc. That's why this won't work well.

So... Other options? Well, we can go by France's move and make the society more religiously neutral. This protects the image of religion being a personal thing. If not done in an extreme matter, of course, because then the idea would pretty much suck...

Then that would be exactly like the IRI are doing today. Out in the public dresscodes must be followed, while at home you are free to do anything...

The moral of the story? There is a balance of religious freedom and there is a balance of public neutrality.

We don't need to rid ourselves from religion at all. Skip the differences between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc... What we need to do is to first of all realize that the Religon + State is not a nice trend. Then secondly we need to either mix up so that religion is freely public, or to personalize religion in private environments.

Now does that mean that we must go rampage with bulldozers over churches mosques and temples? Not necessarily. They can still be there and freely available and used as "private environments" and not be counted as a part of the public. Now, like I said, that kinda ruins the idea of the word "religion" as it seeks to spread itself to more followers... But there is no other option... Religion was brought up to mainly control people, but now when we have secularized governments giving us the best, why bother with religion + state?
_________________
Rest in peace, Omid... You will always be in my heart, dear cousin (1983-2003)

[American Visitor]

Kid Einstein:

I believe everyone on this web site is in agreement that we want a free democratic government for ourselves and for Iran. The issue is how do we achieve that goal. I'm not criticizing those who personally chose to be athiest or agnostic, that is each person's choice. My post was in complaint to those who were lumping all religions together and trashing them all.

Can a secular irreligious society protect itself from ideological extremists? So far things don't look too hopeful. I'm not offended when a woman wears a head scarf, I'm offended when she takes up a gun and shoots my children. For people to freely express their religion has never been a problem for me so long as they respect other people's right to disagree. The problem with Islam is that one of the fundamental beliefs is the use of force if necessary to make people practice their religion, jihad. That seems to be one of the unique features of Islam.

I don't see that France is doing a good job in controlling the Islamists in their midsts. Antisemitism and violence against Jews is frequent and apparently not punished appropriately. The percentage of the population which is Muslim is growing rapidly. France may well become an Islamic state before too long, the native French already seem to be assuming a dhimini posture of appeasement and cowardace. The Islamists will patiently wait and keep their headscarves off until they think they can prevail and then all this business about keeping things private will go by the way side.

So far I have seen no indication that the secularists in Western Societies have the moral courage to confront Islam. They would much rather trash Christians and Jews or anyone else whom they know are no danger to them than confront Islam which has no qualms in killing those people who are accused of blaspehmy. A prime example of the danger in angering Muslims is the author Salmon Rushdie.

I don't think it is possible to skip the differences between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc. It is those differences which make the United States a secular democracy, India a democracy with freedom and Iran a totalitarian regime. How can you equate a religion which teaches that love is the primary good or a religion which has produced a person like Ghandi with a religion which teaches modern slavery and jihad?

Some have said religion was brought up to control people. Do you know for a fact that that is all there is to religion? In religions which have no heirarchy, who is doing the controlling?

[Eternal1]

The biggest enemy to Iran becoming free is religion. Iranians are extremely passionate and emotional people.

So this type of Iranian mentality mixed with religion will leave them susceptible to the '79 scenario.

If Iranians at the time had been more logical there would have been a little more suspicion towards Khomeini's promises of free electricity, better meat, more freedom..and all the other lies he was spewing out.

Iranians should not have any fear or inhibitions with regard to how they live their lives. (I do not include moral behaviour in this statement, which human beings should have anyway, without the necessity of religion)

[Eternal1]

Zoroastrianism has been mentioned as a suitable replacement to Islam in the future.

1. One is the idea that the final word was given over 1000 years ago and there is no way to make major corrections now. That limits the progress which is needed for religions to evolve as we learn more about nature and about ourselves and how to form a better society.
American Visitor.

This is one of the reasons given as to why Islam is not suitable.

This is even more relevant to Zoroastrianism which predates Islam, and has only very small fragments of their book remaining.

Although many of these archaic traditions continue to this day in Iraninan culture, almost as a hybreed with Islamic life, Zoroastrianism could in no way stand on its own as a progressive and complete religion.

Even if it represents in some form the identity of Iran.

Iranians have to break their fear of Islam, and remove its influence from political and public life completely.

Moderate Islam does not exist. Iranians will speak of how the arabs conquered Iran, and that is all they need to remember when considering moderate Islam.

Again IMO Iranians are spiritual/open and no doubt Iranians will adopt some kind of philosophy.

But this has to happen on an individual level and maybe revolve around the intellectual and spiritual development of the person, rather than basic laws and regulations (pray five times a day, do not eat pork...etc).

[patriot]

Dear eternal,

Actually , the people of Iran had already offended themselve when they betrayed Aryamehr, the Shah of Iran in 1979

A king such proud and passionat-caring for his nation!
We broke his heart and buried him in egypt and then we started to make untrue stories about him! What a shame!

But the people who you were talking about them as the protesters on the streets in 1979, well a group of them were the traitors to iran who wanted to offer Iran with everything includ to Soviet union!

And another group of people in Iran, were muslims who were influenced by Mullas from Britain!

And throughout, Radio BBC, The British Braodcasting community, spreading the lie news about Pahlavi and the policy of Iran!
Every night and day, 24 hours a day!

This all, had to hand, face to face, made the anger of society be increased!

Dear American friend,
Try to accept that the Western Policy had a great role in offering the dark ages for Iran in the history!
But I am telling you why, Jimi Carter and British, and Europeans intended to change the regim in Iran!

Because the king of Iran, as you know The light of aryans, was too shiny for the jelous eyes of Western worlds! because the light of aryans, did not want anymore to export oil and gas so cheap to the western world!
because Shah, the light of aryans, wanted entirly to make Iran Number one in economic and promotions!

Becausde shah said in one of his speeches thats better the British came and learn from us!

And yes, The shah of Iran, the iron of peace in middle east must be gone because he would not intrest in making Iran a profitable place for British Especially and jimi carter who as a democrat gave his word to British Queen and flag not american flag!

Actually thats the difference between Republican party and democratic party in America!

Republicans swear on American flag but Democrats swear on british flag!
And don t blame me that I might be too prejeduce because you know I am not!
Look at the history,: clinton had for several times a visit from Buckingham palace with the whole of family!
But republicans never waste their tilm on such unofficial egagments!

The Towers of Economy in 9/11 were fallen, the soldeirs of America must die every day in Iraq and other places!just according to the fault decision of democrats from Kennedy to Nasty Carter!

For more information go and read the book of Empress Farah Pahlavi and learn out how nasty Carter wanted to sell himself to Islamic Republic of Khomeini and wanted to assasinate Our beloved Shah for policy, an ill king who were dying of cancer!

Be sure Iranian nation will never forget, President Sadat and the royalty of Portugal for saving our beloved royal family!

Long live the king!
Long live Reza Shah II

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shahineazadi
_________________
I am Babak Khoramdin

[Eternal1]

[Azadeh_55]

Well the question is for our friend Patriot but here is some background from what I understand. The BBC has a radio program in every language. Back then the BBC was probably the only radio/TV station/news paper/etc that wasn't owned by the government. Prior to the revolution, BBC's broadcasting became very inflamatory taking the side of Khomeini and saying bad things about the Shah. They started rumours (although they called them unconfirmed rumours that people were talking about on the bazaar streets) that about how 17,000 to 20,000 people were estimated to have been killed at the orders of the Shah on 17 Shahrivar. They said the Iranian people blame Savak for Cinema Rex. And they said that some people believe Khomeini's picture can be seen in the moon and that he was some kind of saint! That's how most of these rumours started. People heard about them on BBC radio. The BBC also often repeated Khomeini's messages on the radio telling people when and where to hold demonstrations against the government.


The democrats are not British. But they have shown to have the same policies about Iran as the British. They want to appease the mullahs and keep them in power. I think it was the Carter (a Democrat) administration's U. S. ambassador to Iran that called Khomeini "The Gandhi of this era and a saint". When Carter first took office he made it look as if he would be another friend of the Shah, just like past American presidents. But then he took the side of Khomeini and accused him of being a brutal dictator and accused Savak of inflicting horrible acts of torture against Iranians. Then came Khomeini and the hostage-takings. The Shah fled and came to the U. S. to be hospitalized for his cancer. He was very sick by then. Khomeini asked Carter to send the Shah back to Iran so that he and his family could be tried for their "crimes" and executed. And Carter actually considered it but he was advised not to return the Shah until the hostages were released. Well that didn't come through and the Shah ended up going from country to country and turn away everywhere until his old friend Anwar Saddat let him stay his final days in Egypt. And then Clinton (also a Democrat) also tried to appease the mullahs by relaxing the embargo ban and allowing Persian Carpet and cancer-causing Pestachio to be exported into America. These are our two biggest exports after oil. What else is left? Might as well just remove the trade embargo since the mullahs can sell the oil to the Japanese and Europe and sell expensive rugs and pistachio to USA. And now Bush is probably the only president who has taken a very tough stance against the mullahs with his "axis of evil" speech and saying at least 5 or 10 times in a year for 3 years in a row in various speeches that he supports the struggle of the Iranian people and the Iranian students against the regime. It's not like every democrat president is pro-mullah and every republican is against the mullahs. We have seen Republican presidents sometimes try to appease the mullahs too. Even the Bush administration people like Colin Powell sometimes say things that pleases the mullahs. And let's not forget about Reagan and the Iran Contra affair. But there is definately a trend. Democat's policy towards the mullah regime is very close to the european approach. Even President Kennedy (a Democrat) was also very much against the Shah's policies and accused him of being a brutal dictator and opposed the Shah's so-called "white revolution" to take away lands form the mullahs and the wealthy families and give land to the peasants who worked on it. I don't know how anyone can appose this one. I think I heard Farah Pahlavi say in an interview that it was Nancy Reagan who convinced her husband to pull some strings and allow the dead Shah's family to the U. S.

[Azadeh_55]

[Eternal1]

Thanks for the reply Azadeh

[Azadeh_55]

Here is more of what is behind the scenes. Pro-regime Iranians have long been lobbying Democrat senators and politicians and they are good at what they do. They have lots of money and lots of resources to do it. Truth is they would like to lobby Republicans to leave the mullahs alone but Republicans don't seem to want to hear from them.