Tyranny and Theocracy

The purpose of the Iranian revolution was not just to overthrow the Shah and his despotic regime but to establish a theocracy. The Iranians held a theocracy under a collective of spiritual men would establish and lead a just upright society and the country would flourish.

One of the principle architects of the theocracy Grand Ayatullah Montazeri recently died at the age of 87 as an outspoken critic of the theocracy he helped established. As one of the theocracy’s founders and Grand Ayatullahs Montazeri even though under house arrest since 1997 he had greater freedom to speak his mind and thereby give some legitimacy to the Green Movement for questioning the results of recent elections.

While maintaining he was not disillusioned he criticized the theocratic government for exchanging one oppressive tyranny for another. Monatzeri took issue with political clerics for amassing power and wealth rather than serving the people. He condemned ongoing mass executions of dissidents and for issuing death statements that give people the impression that the Iranian theocratic government is in the business of killing people. He came to advocate freer speech and an open press that he repressed in his earlier years.

I suspect that most conservative and middle of the road Christians would say that they are not surprised by the religious tyranny and clerics using their positions to accumulate power and wealth for themselves. They are not surprised because Iranians cannot have a true theocracy since they worship a false god and have a flawed human penned holy book. Hence, the theocracy is a failed experiment. Rather than the clerics being spiritually minded and guided by the God’s Spirit, they are guided by self-centered motives and do things to keep themselves in power rather than serving the people.

I concur that the Iranian theocracy has not served the Iranian nation and that it is a very impressive regime. History is replete with examples of leaders corrupted by absolute power. It happened in Rome, in France, England, and the Soviet Union. It occurred in the Roman Catholic Church. It happens within an unfettered capitalist system. Even though there are checks and balances against absolute power, the corrupting nature of power and amassing of wealth through office also happens within a democratic system.

Some conservative Christians dream of having a theocracy. If a Christian theocracy were established in any country would we see the same corrupting influence? It is pity to say this, but yes we would see the same. Human beings who are high minded have a way justifying their actions while doing ungodly and unrighteous things. It would not take long for narrow set of religious views to prevail while those who differ in thought and lifestyle are oppressed, and sometimes oppressed in an ungodly fashion. Quietly at first leaders would gather greater power and the wealth trappings of that come with it. Two decades or so later their hording of self-serving power and gathering of immense personal wealth will be done less quietly. Hence, over the years tyranny would be firmly entrenched.

Regardless of the title or the justification absolute power is dangerous for the populous.

July Fourth

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a high ranking conservative Iranian cleric recently stated that the ongoing unrest has foreign roots, in particular British roots. As we know foreign press has not only been restricted in its coverage of the protests but they have now been forbidden to be on the streets and interview Iranian citizens. The spin of the messages coming from the religious and governing authorities is ungodly foreign influences are destroying the orderly calm of the Iranian nation.

Nationals who were employed at the British embassy have been arrested, interviewed/interrogated aggressively and have confessed to being puppets of the ungodly foreign power. Jannati told the thousands of worshippers that the British "had designed a velvet revolution ... In March, they said (in their Foreign Ministry) that street riots were possible during June elections. These are signs ... revealed by themselves." He went on to tell the throng that those involved in the protests "need to repent and ask God to forgive them" and that regardless of what the pre-election polls showed, the election process was “pure” and that reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was truly a landslide victory.

Though he did not name Mousavi directly, Jannati implied Mousavi and his followers were committing treason when he quoted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, as saying that "anyone disrupts unity has not only committed a sin but also has committed treason against the Islamic Republic and the system." There is no room for honest disagreement and dissenting views are crushed.
My initial reaction is that this rhetoric is typical of the Iranian fundamentalists.

Despots, whether they are religious or secular, have a way creating bogey men and escape goats, and decrying how these outsiders and other non true believers are conducting an evil conspiracy in their midst. I would like to say that that happens “out there” and yet when I look at the church I ask if our hands are clean. Do we not have church leaders over the centuries, and even today, suggesting that if you disagree with them that you are fighting God and therefore you are evil? Do we not have those who define so narrowly that if you disagree with them then you cannot be a Christian? Do we not have many in the church who hold that those who accept and support abortion cannot be true Christians? In America do we not have a large number of evangelicals who functionally cannot fathom how anyone can be a true Christian and be a Democrat? And the questions could go on and on.

I fear that similar words of Iran clerics, has been heard on the lips of American and Canadian clergy. I fear that the same the same hard line agenda and spirit of Iran clerics have been and is still found within segments of church leadership today.

On this Fourth of July my mind turns to an American fundamental founding principle, religious freedom. Religious freedom has two sides to it, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion allows people to worship freely as they so choose. We often forget the handmaiden of free worship, allowing others to worship and hold views different than mine without me degrading them or thinking that their faith is less valid than mine. I should not be so arrogant and bold as to claim to have the corner on truth and view others as being less enlightened than me.
Separation of church and state rests upon freedom from religion. Whereas Europe and other countries had their official religion the Founding Fathers determined that not only would the United States not have an official religion but it would allow its citizens to hold any religion they deemed to hold, or even to have no faith. Coupled with that posture means that no religion or set of beliefs should dominate government or be advanced by government action.

I do not agree with those who extend separation of church and state to mean that a person who is running for or in public office should not speak of their faith. Hearing about a person’s faith helps me to understand what motivates the person who is running for office and even what types of legislation he or she will push forward. Though a candidate like a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin may be a Christian, their fundamentalist views and statements about entrenching Christian believes in national legislation and their dismissive attitude toward liberal, adherents of non-Christian faiths and atheists scares me tremendously. Their type of thinking and demonizing is the American equivalent of what Ayatollah Jannati and the followers of other Iranian conservative clerics are saying and doing.

On July 4th 1776 the United States was founded upon freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Such freedoms are part of its nobility and strength as a country. Such freedom allows for diversity of religious expression and open political discourse. Those who signed the Constitution recognized that when one set of religious believes hold sway across the land and in government, that a nation is only a short distance away from the a society that claims to be benevolent while being far from being benevolent.

I am thankful for Jannati’s recent statements and the Iranian governing authorities reaction to the recent protests as they help me to celebrate this 4th of July with greater appreciation.

Iran - My Thoughts

Like many others I’m following the events in Iran with some interest. Clearly there is concern in Iran over the announced election results in Iran. I cannot attest to the veracity of the concerns but there is a clear disparity between the pre-election polls and announced results. Such a disparity between the results and the pre-election polls in a US or Canadian election would be extremely disconcerting too.

Iran is experiencing high unemployment (some figures peg it between 20 and 22%) and economic stagnation. Though there are concerns within the citizenry that various local authorities are corrupt and self-serving, the upper eulachon of the ruling authorities are seem to be turning a blind eye to such charges. Governing authorities make sweeping charges blaming the wows of the nation upon the shoulders of external powers and groups rather than accepting responsibility for their nation’s problems and doing something about the struggles of the average citizen. Protestors are viewed as enemies of the state. Through their religious police and militia the brutality of Iranian government is stunning.

We have seen this story before in Iran. In the past Iranian protestors who have questioned the validity of the governing authorities have been met with brutal oppression and sweeping arrests. Some who were arrested disappeared forever. As in the past we are again witnessing the secret police and selected military units vigorously beating protestors and other bystanders. We are again seeing the government dismissing the concerns of the protestors and through government controlled media telling a story that does not match what the average citizen is seeing happening on the street. We are again seeing a government not being far from truthful with its people.

In the past, it was the Shah’s brutal regime that was the focus of the populist protest. Today, it is those who fueled the protests against the Shah and became the new leaders who are brutalizing and oppressing their fellow citizens. The current regime is as tyrannical as the Shah’s and are behaving much like the Shah’s regime that they cried out had lost its legitimacy to govern. Both are brutal, both oppressive, both with uncaring upper leadership, and both attempting to repress the populous while only loosing the respect of the nation to lead and govern. Both police states. Both through their actions are showing the level of corruption and the extent that they will go to hold to power.

The primary difference is that then the regime was a secular regime that gave lip service to religion whereas today’s is a strict conservative religious regime that gives lip service to modern life and human dignity. It seems that Iran’s leadership unapologetically feels free to do the same things as the Shah because they are doing it in the name of their religion whereas the Shah did it not in the name of religion. From 1976 to 1979 the supreme ruling authority the Shah proved to be an unfit ruler and his power rightly ended in 1979. Irrespective of their misguided religious justification, today’s the Supreme Leader and his holy cadre are walking down the same road as the Shah and as the Shah showed himself to be an unfit leader so too are the current governing authorities.