Jahanshah Javid

JJ Jan!

I am not offended; not at all. I am also not Bahai and from time to time have disagreed with them.

My main point is that religions share a lot of things. They are benign until they get power. Then they get oppressive. You correctly point this out in response to Marge. The thing I want to avoid is any sort of favorable treatment of one religion over another. I don't care if a religion is 10 years old or 10,000. We may as well treat them the same.

Islam's biggest influence = Muhammad Ali = loved by all

Everything is sacred.

Contradiction

So a belief system that is not based on reality or tax contribution is free to contribute? 

I am a tax paying citizen. Rick Warren's church is not. How is it fair that he gets to influence legislation that will negatively change people's lifestyles.

That's the problem of religion. If you say it is a private home-based belief, then why does it reach beyond the home and into other people's homes? How is this democratic? 

If Hollywood influences law, it is because its contribution to economy or media is at stake. Nothing except freedom is at stake when religions become involved. 

I don't deny anyone a right to practice or have that belief. It's when that belief exits the mind and limits the rest of "us," that I grow concerned. 

Free to influence

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek, everyone tries to influence society in some way. Religions, Hollywood, politicians, media, advertisers, lobbyists, writers, bloggers, teachers...

Religions are free to influence anyone they like. Just as you and I are free to counter them with our own views. That's what democracy is: equal and fair access to say and think in whatever way we choose -- as long as we do not force it on others.

JJ: I am not referring to breaking the law, but INFLUENCING it

JJ religion is a problem everywhere. Even in this top democracy of the USA, we have citizens who do not have access to sex education or family planning because of religious interfering. This is not a matter of breaking a law, but influencing it to a degree that harms society and citizens. Sex education is just an example, but law and policy related to morality is always screwed up everywhere because of religion. 

Now these laws are considered crown jewels for these pulpit bullies and they encourage them to move further with religiously influencing our laws and policies.  

Even worse, the US media (simply because it is popular and profitable) is rewarding these apocolyptic religious followers with hosts in main stream who are Mormon and evangelical Christians. Rick Warren just raised 2.5 million dollars in a recession in a matter of a week. He hates homosexuality.

Do you know that Mormons (an American founded religion with America's fate in mind) believe that the American government must be dissolved and that a mormon order must be established. Also, they believe that the American currency must be dissolved. Before you accuse me of bashing and aspiring to spread conspiracy, ask yourself why even most Christians oppose a Mormon president like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck's prophecy telling via Gold advertising.

Even "moderate" people are holding radical ideas. You can be blind to it in the name of tolerance, or you can admit that these are ideas that present threats to democracy and freedom. 

Abdul Baha's praise for parliamenetary democracy of 1906

The Azali sect's desparate attemtps to trash Bahiis is no better exposed than here. Compare the lies written by Azali (Nur-i-Azal) earlier on this page and the documenetd evdience in this letter from Abdul-Baha - see the link provided:

Excerpt:

"This became a cause for great happiness. The constitutional government is, according to the unequivocal divine Text, sanctioned by the revealed Law, and it is a cause of the might and prosperity of the State, to which allegiance is owed, and of the progress and liberty of the respected citizenry."

//www.h-net.org/~bahai/trans/vol2/abparl/abconst.htm

Problem once solved is not a problem anymore.

JJJ once there is true democracy in Iran all of these discussions are overcome by events and not necessary anymore.  In our life time our best achievment is to teach and learn how to coexist.  In fact many have said co-existence is the main theme of the modern world.  Have you seen that coexist bumper sticker with all the faiths' symbol used as an alphabet?

It does not sit well if we dismiss religion when many are religious and tell them they are living a wrong life and need to get on with something else.

Talking about democracy is cheap and super easy, especially in America and this i.com.  Finding practical solutions is difficult.  I prefer practicing tolerance than issuing slogans and cheap talk.  

Everything is sacred.

KEYS: separation of church and state / state guarantee

JJ,

Theocracy is just the ultimate unholy mixture of religion and politics.  For the sake of not repeating, take a look at my comment below (I beg to differ: religion and politics do not mix) where I discuss two democracies with bad mixes of politics and religion. The two keys to religious freedom in a democracy are:

* Clear adherence to the separation of church and state.

* State guarantee for the existence and the practice of all religions.

Theocracies

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan, I'm sorry if I offended anyone by not including the Bahai faith as a major religion. We're just having a casual conversation, not a legal or academic one.

If you ask people on the street to name some major religions, chances are the Bahai faith is not going to be one of them, even though it has a presence in virtually every county and growing faster than any other that I know of.

But that's not the point. As I mentioned earlier what we are discussing here is religions that already have a track record as theocracies. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the three main ones. If you would like to discuss others, go ahead.

Marge Jan

You are assuming the IRI leadership is sane and reasoning. If they were they would have let Mousavi be President. He did win and would have prolonged the Mullah rule. But they did not. I think Khamenei is getting senile and becoming irrational. AN is certifiable by any standards and I would not entrust my life to him.

Anyway, the decision is not ours. It belongs to RP. It is his life and his freedom. He can and should be the person making this choice.

I know a lot of people don't like him. I know people personally who go ballistic when I just mention RP. When I ask them their reasoning is due to their hatred of his father. RP has done nothing wrong;  nothing to deserve being at the mercy of Khamenei or  AN. If fact i would not wish that even for the worst of people!

Waht Azali is afraid to tell you is that ...

Bahais can't run for political office by principle but can have political opinion.

Bahai faith is not a run of the mill ism.  it aims at spiritual pluralism and not a political one.

Religions within the law

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek, religion is a problem in places where it infringes on the rights of others or when it turns into a theocracy such as that in Iran.

But in democracies, where all religions are free to practice, religions or religious individuals only become a problem if they break the law. They can preach any non-sense they want but they are not permitted to impose their views on anyone.

There are lots of radical, loony, creepy religious sects (as well as non-religious groups such as the KKK or the Nazis) who operate in the US, for instance. But as soon as they try to use force or break any laws that protect the rights of the rest of us, they will be stopped and prosecuted.

JJ Jan!

Babak_SD, when people speak of major religions, they usually mean those that have been around a thousand years or more. Also, we are discussing religions that have reached statehood.

I don't see the reason how you define a major religion. Maybe because I am not religious. But to me one is no different from another. 

What is magical about 1000 years?  Why does there have to be "statehood". Is Zartoshti a major religion? I say yes. But it has fewer followers than Baha'i but fits the bill as you describe it. 

How about old religions that are no longer around. Say the Egyptian and Greek polytheistic religions? They definitely are older than 1000 and reached statehood. They just happen to have either no or very few adherents. 

I think the distinction is artificial. I like the way US does it and treats all religions the same. The one thing I don't like is the tax exemption but otherwise US got it right. 

Our problem with religion is that we are raised to think there are "legitimate" religions and there is all the rest. The legitimate ones are "people of the book" and everyone else does not count. It colors our thought and take a lot of work to break out of that form of thinking.

VPK Jaan

Will try to answer your questions later on so stay tuned.

I have to leave for a day and catch a train.

Will try to answer tonight or tomorrow.

Stay tuned and thanks for the challenging questions.

DK 

Criticizing/"Bashing" is democratic and secures democracy

That is why I brought up Nehru in the first place. Even moderate Islam was incompatible with democratic aims of India. 

You are claiming that democracy is the antidote to fanaticism and fundamentalism. OK, but neither of these are reason people "bash" religion, JJ. Even moderate Islam is a problem. Moderate all religions are a problem, just like climate change and evolution denial are wrong. These are false ideas and arguing that is not "bashing."

Unless you mean that combatting fundamentalism is a greater priority than criticizing actual religions (call them moderate), I think that since we have a democratic community here at Iranian.com, it is not "bashing" when we say that we condemn religions that whether practiced by fanatics or moderates, hold people back. 

Why keep quiet because places where fundamentalism take root are non-democratic? Why can't we get to actually criticizing the vehicle of religion before it even reaches fundamentalism.... the seed of the root, if you will. Please don't call this bashing. 

I disagree VPK

Why do you say that? Why would the regime martyr RP? That would probably be the best thing for monarchy. I disagree entirely. I think if he did return to Iran, it would be a major move and very helpful to shipping out these mullahs who have overstayed since the summer (and sooner if we wish to be technical....).

Darius jan

You are making good points again. In particular  argument about keeping Iran united.  I am not a die-hard Monarchist but am very open to the idea. Specially given a choice of a weak kneed Republic or a strong Monarchy I will go for the Monarchy.

Please help me with some questions:

• What are the powers of the Monarch? What are the checks and balances
• How does the Monarch effect politics. I am fine with RP but what happens if there is a future Monarch who is for whatever reason unfit.
• Is there a process for replacing a Monarch.
• Are you open to a female Monarch at some point. During the Sassanian there were two Female Monarchs.
• How is the Royal family funded. Do they work like other people. 
• What would the flag be? I personally like Darafshe Kaviani. It is really the only true flag of Iran. 

Good luck

javanmard, good luck to Bahais in "building an alternative social structure, based on consultation and cooperation."

There already is a tried and tested system of government based consultation and cooperation of all people, religious and non. It's called democracy. That's my preference.

FYI/Food for Thought ...

No Obligation to go through any of these blogs unless interested ...

RESTORATION: The British Royal Family at Work (PBS : 7 Parts)

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ? 

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince

But ... KNOWLEDGE IS POWER ! ;0)

Best,

DK

mannya2001 Jan

Why should RP go and put himself at the mercy of Mullahs. He is not crazy! These are the same people who delight in rape and murder. There is absolutely no point in a symbolic sacrifice. RP is more able to do good right here. I would hope that he does more organizing and takes a more active role. But he needs to be free to do so.  As I said before I would vote for him no problem.  Definitely over Ebadi. But I don't want RP to get himself killed or thrwon in jail for nothing.

Not a vote of approval for RP

Ari,

I didn't say I would vote for Reza Pahlavi, I only wondered if he would ever renounce the monarchy. Shirin Ebadi still has my vote if she runs for president.

I agree that RP's hardcore followers are going to be very disappointed if he abandons the crown, but on the other hand he would gain the support and confidence of a much wider segment of the population.

All this will remain a theoretical discussion -- good for students in politics rather than the real world. The reality is that the Islamic Republic is still standing and chances of a free and fair election are probably years away.

Anonymouse

JJ is practicing his freedom of speech. That doesn't deserve so much anger!

Does freedom of speech sound good to you? Are you for democracy?

I read both JJ's blog and didn't see a word of insult to Islam as a religion. His message in his first blog was clear: He was asking all Muslim to condemn any and all action of violence in order to redress the image of Islam in the world, which is nowadays getting a very bad reputation because of those violent actions. If you got it wrong, this is not JJ's fault dear. Look for the real reason inside of your own mind.

Regarding why he had posted that blog right after the New Year:

Well, like it or not, that event happened on the New Year Eve and as a journalist, JJ like all other jurnalists, has all the rights to blog about it and also it is his duty to give an opinion about it. Again, what was wrong with that?

Marge jaan Iran's Nehru does not have 2 faiths to separate

While India had that issue of separating its huge population, Iran does not have this particular problem.  Iran is what 95% Shiite? or 90%?  Iraq has this problem of Shiite and Sunni as we've witnessed over the past 7 years or so.

My beef with JJJ and his previous blog and that cartoon posting is that he is so hot and cold about this issue.  Some crazy person with a criminal mind wants to kill someone somewhere and blame it on Islam and our JJ issues a fatwa of his own the very next day, not even 24 hours later, and ask 1 Billion Muslim (ala Austin Powers ;-) to condemn this attempt in the strongest term possible.  WTF?!  Millions of Muslims are still hungover from the New Year's Eve celebrations and this is JJJ's new year message to them?

Then he writes this blog and says Islam is not the problem and we need democracy.  You see wanting democracy and talking about it is not difficult.  Especially if like JJ we live it.  The problem is trying to coexist and harness this energy.  He wants to insult Muslims and call it democracy and tell them you need to do this and that and don't mind me insulting you!

The generation that is now in the streets of Iran demanding justice was born and raised under Islam and its teachings.  If you remember early on some of the blogs and messages of the protesters in response to torture and imprisonment was that they could not believe after all they were taught in school to do good and be good because Islam says so, the ones implementing Islam were doing bad and being worse.  Ordinary Muslims don't go and kill and bomb places.  Give them a break.  Leave them alone and let them decide their own fate through natural progress and stop insulting them.  But I guess that is too much to ask and as long as we rant about democracy and don't practice it, we're just another clueless Muslim whether someone practice it or not, like JJ who is not a practicing Muslim and Puuurrrrsssssian?!

Everything is sacred.

I suggest a Referendum "Without Pre-Conditions" ... ;0)

After all was it not you guys who were suggesting negotiating with the blood suckers in Iran without Pre Conditions ? ...

You Guys Lost Your Bid ! Since We all seem to agree that Regime Change is the Only Option left !

So Now it's Our Turn ! ;0)

How about a Referendum "Without Pre-Conditions" ? ...

You cannot ask RP to renounce from his heriditary title in order to satisfy your selfish preferences or reduce the Referandum question to a choice between Republic or a Republican Parlimentary System.

You can't have both ends

The Clear and un-ambiguous Choice is Between: A Constitutional Monarchy and A Secular Republic. No More No less.

Is that Fair enough ?

If Not well we will be JUST AS STUBBORN as You Guys and Stick to our own Propaganda to promote our vision.

Ooh La La it's Good to be the King :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6zEHG_qQU

Hee Hee ...

After your Disastrous Republican experience you should be greatful that RP extended a Friendly hand towards his opponents by suggesting a Referandum. Many Die Hard Monarchists were pissed off by it.

The Choice is Yours ...

Otherwise nothing stops you from turning NIAC into a Republican Party in exile with Shirin Ebadi or Akbar Ganji as your candidate and Trita Parsi as general secretary and Hamid Dabashi as spokesperson and the OTHER Kadivar as Vice President ....

But do Remember No One expects the Spanish ( er ... IRI ) inquisition:

//iranian.com/main/2010/jan/mohsen-kadivar

I am sure you will fail in the process so Good Luck ...

But I don't think Iranian Democracy would benefit from such a stubborn Stance on both our ends of our political spectrum would it ? ...  

And Only the IRI would  benefit from further divisions.

My Humble Opinion,

DK

Just to clear things

I prefer the idea of a Parliamentary Democracy over a Presidential Republican system.  Or over a Constitutional Monarchy. However I think any form of real democracy is fine as long as that is what peope want.

I think RP will make a good elected leader and will vote for him. However the  elected leader should be there for a limited time. No one should get a lifetime position. If people like him they can reelect him and if not replace him. Maybe we should also have term limits but these are details.

I am not basing my preference of a political system on a person. Not on RP or anyone else. Unfortunately IRI was exactly that. it was a system based on Khomeini and his personality. It has not worked out as we all see.

What RP can do but I hope HE doesn't Do-my idea so dont steal it

OK, RP could have and possibly could still do the following if he wants to be remembered and or seen as a leader:

1. Schedule a hugh news conference

2. Get on Bristish Airways with One way ticket to Iran

What will be the repurcussions:

a. will be put on airplane back to London by IRI officials.  This act will improve his image

b. he will be arrested.  As a consequence will be made to make a public confession followed by

         i.  execution.  unlikely since IRI will not want to make a martyr out of him

         ii. house arrest/ jail time.     This will keep him in the conscious of Iranians inside Iran and will force foreing press to cover him more widely.   Similar to that peace lady in Burma and Mandela in Africa. 

However, the above requires courage and sacrifice. Does he have it???

If I was in his position, I would do the above.

I doubt though he would take such a step.  I hope (secretly) that he doesn't do it because I don't want him to have a chance though...hehehe

JJ and Ari Interesting comments ...

WOW Guys You have come a LONG Way I must say ;0))

Particularly since the early days when RP appeared as irrelevent in your eyes in the political arena ... Amd Reform of the IRI was the talk of the day ...

But clearly neither of you has read any of his two books: Winds of Change or a Time of Choice ( That is not your fault cause it is Only available in French for the time being) .

Sure it is not the most brilliant Political Thesis I have read to date nor as sophisticated  one like Trita Parsi's interesting research "Treacherous alliance" ... ( interesting from a geo political point of view but certainly not a blueprint for regime change) But Nevertheless it was equally a bestseller.

Not that the confirmed Pilot RP is was not capable of writing a PhD thesis ( his own younger brother Ali Reza has written one in Ancient Pre Islamic History) But because it was not meant to be anything else than a kind of Political Manifesto and personal pledge to honor and help his fellow compatriots in their struggle for Freedom and democracy.

If he wanted to be more sophisticated it would have "politicized" him even more.  So it is not because he does not have the brains to write a more in depth analysis.

So If you had taken the time to read it you would learn that the choice of Running for President is out of the question.

If Iranians choose after a Referandum to establish a Secular Republic, he will step aside from any claim to Power.

He has not changed in the course of this campaign from that line of thought.

From the very first interviews RP gave in the Western Media and particularly the American Press,

PRINCE OF PERSIA: Barbara Walters Interview with Crown Prince Reza (2002)

RP clearly mentioned that he saw just one political mission in his life and that was to see Iranians go to the poll and vote for their system of government of their choice.

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... by DK

So that is why the issue of a Referandum which he suggested and to which many non monarchists ( such as Amir Abbas Entezam, Mohsen Sazegara to name a few) also believe in it's necessity is to put an end to any ambiguity to this debate after the fall of the IRI.

So Ari perfectly understood RP's dillema in that he cannot run for office without dissappointing his own constituency of initial supporters that is Monarchists like me ;0) or at worst Shahollahi's like those morons on LA TV's ( which I think do not represent any real official political stance other than their Bazari concerns).

Also as a Constitutionalist my problem is not RP but the institution I believe in.

RP certainly plays an important role amongst us monarchists (and personally I truly would like to see him on that Peacock Throne as King and in that Palace only to keep his mouth Shut like in the same way as I would expect that from Prince Charles or Prince William in the future if any of the two becomes King.) but like Ari pointed quite correctly he does not bear on his shoulders alone the future of the Royal institution. He does as long as he does not renounce to that title. If he does any other member can take up the mantle not to say other Royal inheritors from other dynastic families.

The Monarchy in it's constitutional and institutional form is not cult ridden. The Crown ( and what it symbolizes) is above the Person who has the honor of Holding it.

Also unlike his father or grandfather or other Monarchs, a would be RP2 won't be able to crown himself like Napoleon. The Crown would be set on his head probably by a Grand Chambellan in the name of the new Constitution and the People or by the head of the elected Parliment after a ceremonial Oath:

See Juan Carlos takes Oath in Parliment:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX-ZW-AgybI

Or the King of Belgium( the 1906 Constitution was drafted on the Belgian Model, and the young monarchy in Belgium is hardly 200 years old) :

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

As a Matter of Fact this is something most Shahollahi Fanatics most probably don't like to imagine possible cause for them the King  or Queen is King by Divine Right.

However to claim that their is no difference between a Monarchy and a Republic won't be honest on my part. The fundemental difference is that a monarchy is oligarchic and rests on an Oligrachy that is a family. Members of that family do line up as potential Kings or Queens to be if the heir is to die from a heart attack, illness or is unfit to rule like was the case of King Edward VIII as I mentioned below. But their political role is Null in that their son called aristocratic status does not give them any priveledges. Their personal fortune cannot be made from the Royal Treasury nor are any of these individuals above the Law.

You can think it is a stupid idea all together, that is your perfect right but you can't accuse us of selling you the idea of the Restoration by cheating you on the merchandize. All Constitutions are at some stage Hypocritical because societies and mankind is not perfect. But that is the price civilizations pay in order to maintain civil peace they end up by drafting a constitution. The alternative is civil war or Revolution.

I am simply stating what a Constitutional Monarchy is and what it is and What you get in return if the people choose it over a secular republic. 

As for An Elected Monarchy like is the case in Malaysia is something I have debated with likeminds in the past. Why Not ? I have nothing against the notion.

Except that I think that Re Inventing the Wheel be it for the Monarchy or a Republic is something which like the French would say is "casse gueule" ...

The reason I look towards models in Western Democracies is that they have lasted the Test of Time. So has the American Presidential Model. My preference goes to the Constitutional Monarchies but once again that is what the entire debate over having a Referandum is all about.

That is why I think his message is being more and more understood including in the Iranian Diaspora:

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ...

In anycase I find this debate interesting and constructive be it for a better understanding on the dillemas faced by either options a Secular Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy. I look forward to a mature debate if possible with anyone interested in the subject here or in other blogs.

My humble Opinion,

DK

PS: Another major issue in a Post IRI Iran will be that of Separaticism: How efficient would be a Republic in maintaining the country united. This has nothing to do with the democratic nature of the institution but the respect it can attract. Incidents like in Kurdistan or Baluchestan hint that independant aspirations have not died despite 30 years of an Islamic Republic which was to bring democracy to the most remote regions. A democratic IRan will naturally bring about it's load of expectations regardless of the system of government people will choose. In the UK  for instance Scotland has it's own Parliment with enhanced local powers in exchange to remaining Loyal to the Crown. That is why Sean Connery was Knighted ;0) Gee These Bloody Darn Brits are Smart Asses Aren't they ? LOL

Baha'i & Politics

Little Tweet makes a comment "Aren't Baha'is supposed to stay away from politics?" - which Nur-i-Azal then uses as an excuse for his rant. For those interested in the truth, the following is the Baha'i position: 

Baha'is do not believe that the present political system, in any country of the world, is capable of taking humanity forward. It is too much based on competiveness and dissension; it is encourages conflict. It is based on a hierarchical social structure - with a few individuals (usually rich white men) at the upper levels of society running everything and telling everyone what to think and the majority of people (women, racial and religious minorities, the poorer classes) at the bottom. This means that there is always a group who are at the bottom of the ladder, who feel oppressed and alienated and are therefore seeking to disrupt the system. It means that the whole structure can only be kept in place by the threat of or the use of violence. 

For Baha'is, this whole structure is falling apart and is incapable of being reformed, because its foundation is no longer an adequate basis for a modern society. Therefore Baha'is do not enter into the political processes of this faulty and doomed structure. In that sense, Baha'is do not participate in the divisive and destructive politics of the present world order. 

However, Baha'is are engaged in building an alternative social structure, based on consultation and cooperation, where a small elite does not hold power. Decisions about community activities are made at the local level in group meetings where everyone has a say. This is a radically new social structure - a new way of running communities. This process is only in the early stages of its development and it is by no means perfect but it is a process in which everyone is learning and trying to improve. In this sense Baha'is are very much engaged in a new kind of politics. 

There is obviously a lot more I could write about how this all functions but my post is long enough already - I hope I have clarified matters a little. 

RP as president or King? only if he takes an active role NOW

People of Iran know of Reza Pahlavi, but do not know him.  I have said before that RP should not assume that the people of Iran are going to depose the Mullahs and then invite him back in to take the peacock throne.  However, he will have a chance if he defines his vision for Iran and shows bravery by taking an active role in leading a democratic / secular opposition to the Mullahs NOW.  He may not have a shot at the presidency either if he sits idle.

Why I wouldn't vote for RP

JJ,

RP can renounce his claim to the throne and run for office in a democracy, but it isn't for him to dissolve the monarchy. As long as there are Iranian monarchists, that institution still lives and belongs to the nation, not RP. Presidential candidate RP will be rightly criticized for pulling a Sarah Palin, ie. resigning his office and shirking his responsibility to honor the hard work and dedication of his original supporters. I wouldn't vote for a candidate with a history of unreliable behavior towards his supporters no matter what he promised.