Iran Moves To Assert Power In The Middle East
The Shia-led, non-Arab country has not only challenged the United States and its Arab allies throughout the Middle East, but it also has become the biggest beneficiary of U.S. involvement in Iraq, experts say.
By eliminating Saddam Hussein — Iran’s sworn enemy — and installing a Shia-dominated government for the first time in Iraq’s history, the United States strengthened Iran’s clerical regime both in its battle with internal dissidents and in its struggle with Sunni Arab governments.
“Without lifting a finger, the Iranians became the most dominant regional power,” said Diaa Rashwan, a senior researcher at Al-Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies in Cairo.
An avowed enemy of Israel and the United States, which accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, Tehran also has the Sunni-dominated Arab world on edge. Among the concerns: the regional ascendancy of Iran, its nuclear program, its growing influence on the Iraqi leadership and its involvement in other countries with large Shia communities, especially Lebanon.
And the direction of the war in Iraq has heightened the anxiety. “All regimes in the Middle East recognize that America has lost the war in Iraq,” said Marwan Kabalan, a political science professor at Damascus University. “They’re all maneuvering to protect their interests and to gain something out of the American defeat. … Everyone is fighting battles through local proxies. It’s like the Cold War.”
The regional conflict is playing out on three fronts. In Iraq, neighboring Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia are backing Sunni militants, while Iran supports Shia militias. In Lebanon, Hezbollah — a Shia militia backed by Iran and its less powerful ally, Syria — has been trying for months to topple a government aligned with Washington and authoritarian Sunni Arab regimes. And in the Palestinian territories, Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas, while the United States and its Arab allies are backing beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement.
“All of the region’s crises are now interconnected, thanks to the war in Iraq,” said Rashwan. “Nothing can be resolved without the Americans finding a way out of Iraq.”
Today, just about anyone associated with the United States is viewed in the Arab world as a traitor, starting with the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. “Even though their leaders are allied with America, Arabs are more angry at America than ever before,” said Mohammad Salah, Cairo bureau chief of Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper. “They don’t want any more American meddling in the region. … They don’t trust any government that is supported by Washington.”
The Bush administration has become so unpopular in the region that even some of its staunchest allies are trying to publicly distance themselves from it. No Arab regime is closer to Washington than Saudi Arabia, the second largest foreign oil provider to the United States. But at an Arab League summit in March, Saudi King Abdullah for the first time harshly criticized the U.S. military presence in Iraq, calling it an “illegitimate foreign occupation.”
That statement was aimed at appeasing Arab masses angry about the growing bloodshed in Iraq and Arab regimes’ continued alliance with Washington. Abdullah’s comment resonated well in the Arab world, with analysts, newspaper columnists and average citizens praising the kingdom for challenging U.S. policies.
“Saudi Arabia’s rulers view themselves as the rightful leaders of the Muslim world, but Iran is challenging that leadership right now,” said Rashwan. “The Saudis must try to show that they can be independent from America.”
Although Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority, its rulers fear Iran’s potential influence over a sizable and sometimes-restive Shia population concentrated in the kingdom’s oil-rich Eastern Province. In neighboring Bahrain, another key American ally in the Persian Gulf, the Shia majority is chafing under Sunni rulers, who also fear Iran’s reach.
The Saudis have tried to pursue their own agenda in the Middle East, apart from Washington’s. In February, Abdullah brokered an agreement between Hamas and Fatah for a unity government in the Palestinian territories. By June, the deal collapsed and Hamas took control of Gaza by force, prompting Abbas to dissolve the unity government.
“The traditional powers in the Arab world are working behind the scenes to undermine Iran’s influence,” said Kabalan. “One way they can do that is by showing some progress on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, even if it’s not real progress.”
The Hamas takeover was a victory for Iran, which sent tens of millions of dollars to the militant group since it won Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006. “While the Americans and Europeans were trying to isolate Hamas by cutting off all funding to the Palestinians, Iran moved in to help Hamas,” said Salah. “The West gave Iran this opportunity to increase its influence.”
Arab leaders are not worried that Iran will export the cultural and theological aspects of Shiism; rather, analysts say, they’re afraid of political Shiism spreading to the Arab world through groups like Hezbollah. The Shia militia’s strong showing against a far superior Israeli military during last summer’s war in Lebanon has electrified the Arab world, and Hezbollah’s actions offer a stark contrast to Arab rulers cooperating with the United States.
“Iran has been successful in its support of Hezbollah and Hamas,” said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, an expert on the Shia and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “Arab regimes now fear that their Sunni populations will be seduced by Iran and Hezbollah’s message of challenging the United States and empowering the dispossessed.”
There is a historical precedent for this. The 1979 Islamic Revolution, a popular uprising led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini against the U.S.-backed shah, inspired revolutionary zeal among nationalists throughout the Arab world. The revolution’s aftershocks were felt for a long time in the Middle East, helping, indirectly, to give rise to some militant Sunni movements and inspiring Shia communities in Lebanon and Iraq. Nowhere was that influence more deeply felt than in Lebanon, where Iran helped create Hezbollah after the Israeli invasion of 1982.
Fearful of this new challenge from Shias to become the torch-bearers of Arab nationalism, the Saudis are trying to reassert their role as leaders of the Arab and wider Muslim world. In his speech at the Arab summit, Abdullah insisted that only when Arab leaders unite will they “be able to prevent foreign powers from shaping the region’s future” - a reference to both the United States and Iran.
“The Middle East is at a historical juncture,” said Rashwan. “It’s not simply the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but events in Iraq and Iran that will have a profound impact on the future of the Arab world.”
Q&A
What are the historical roots of the split between the major sects of Islam (Sunni and Shia)?
After the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, there was a dispute about who should succeed him as leader (or caliph) of the Muslim community. One faction (which later became the Sunnis) argued that the prophet’s closest companion, Abu Bakr, should become caliph. Another faction (which became the Shias) argued that succession should be hereditary and that the most fitting successor was the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali. They argued that Muhammad had designated Ali to succeed him. Ultimately, Abu Bakr was chosen as caliph by a vote of Muslim leaders.
In 656, Ali became the fourth caliph of Islam. Shortly afterward, a civil war broke out among Muslim factions and Ali restored order by reaching a compromise with his enemies. That infuriated some of his most hardline supporters. In 661, as he prayed in a mosque near the Iraqi city of Kufa, Ali was assassinated by a former follower. He was the first of 12 Shia imams, or successors to Muhammad, whom Shia believers regard as divinely motivated and infallible (although they do not view them as prophets).
Nineteen years after Ali’s death, two of his sons, Hussein and Abbas, were killed in battle in the Iraqi city of Karbala. The violent deaths of Ali and his sons became the defining factor in the split between Shia and Sunni sects. They also made martyrdom one of the most important tenets of Shiism.
What are the differences between the sects?
The distinctions between Shia and Sunni Islam are similar to those between Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity, involving style of ritual and philosophical orientation rather than fundamental pillars of faith. Both sects follow Islam’s five basic pillars: the profession of faith in God, daily prayers, giving alms, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and making a pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca at least once in a lifetime.
Sunnis and Shias follow different schools of Islamic law, which deal with marriage, divorce and rules of inheritance. The Shia clergy is more hierarchical, and Shias generally choose an ayatollah to emulate.
What are the sources of modern conflict between the two sects?
Today, the vast majority (about 85 percent) of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are Sunnis. The rest are Shias, with under 1 percent comprising smaller sects.
In some countries - Iran, Iraq and Bahrain - Shia are a majority. In Lebanon, they are the largest sect, making up about 40 percent of the population. In several oil-rich Persian Gulf countries - notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - the Shia are a sizable minority ruled by the Sunni majority.
Many Sunnis criticize the Shia for developing rituals not mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah, a collection of the sayings and actions of Muhammad. These rituals include veneration of Shia imams, frequent pilgrimages to Shia shrines and slight variations in daily prayers. In many countries, the conflict between Sunnis and Shias is largely over political power. In Iraq, for example, the Shia majority was suppressed during Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated rule. While the majority of Sunnis accept Shias as Muslims, some extremist Sunnis regard them as heretics who should be killed.
Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.
one more article giving the reason why the US will be attacking iran, sooner or later. probably. unforeseen circumstances, like an economic collapse, could forestall this.
“one more article giving the reason”
Ballsy, correction… “One more article giving the concocted excuses why the US will be attacking Iran, that half of America will swallow without any critical thought.”
Today Baghdad - tomorrow Teheran!!
Bet on it!
It’ll be Bush’s scorpion sting to the U.S.
Another reason to drop all “religion” entirely.
Another reason that the religion of Islam must start reigning in their radical Extremists now - themselves.
If there are any grassroots movements in these countries want to be a part of the world where the power hungry are not out create absolute states, they should make themselves heard. Now. Even if it is in secret.
Don’t forget that there is infighting within the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq as well, in further divisions of ethnicity. The same is the case in Afghnistan, where it is not a religious division, but ethnic.
The bloodthirsty propogandists of the middle eastern religions should be put in a deep freeze somewhere. Or burned, given the world’s warming conditions.
Time to fund some Buddhist “missionaries”?
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are children’s religions. Buddhism is for adults. But any religion has its pluses and minuses.
Though reading about the shia sunni split reminds me of Gulliver’s Travels and the Lilliputians being divided into Big Enders and Little Enders–they went to war over which was the right way to crack open their eggs, the big end or the little end.
Ah Swift.
Let’s not blame the people who are now the victims of bombs and rockets and death. Lets blame the people who formulate the war, the chickenhawks, the PNACers, the liars, the conmen. The Perles, the Feiths, the Adelmans, The Wurmers, The Wolfowitzs, the Rumsefelds, the Cheneys, the Bushes!
The Film “Why we Fight”
http://tinyurl.com/yoocg9
NO WAR WITH IRAN!!!!!!!! NO WAR FOR THE NEOCON AGENDA!!!
dcbeltway
The war is a small addition in a very large theorom.
The movie you mentioned is one side of the equation.
What I mentioned in my previous quote is a very large part of the other side.
And you are doing exactly what has been allowed for so long - skirting of the issue by those who most need to address it.
You are skirting the problem the problem is the military industrial-think tank complex which needed a new enemy now that communism is dead.
You can be an aeithiest if you wish but majority of the world chooses to follow a religion. You cannot change that.
The mind keeps trying to survive, to survive it need food and more and more thoughts are its food. The Spiritual and Religious activites you see in all of them on all sides is doing nothing but keeping there members (slaves) in the Thought Realm Matrix and in the controlled dream of human suffering. Forget about all this religious nonsence, it is just a trick to keep you suffering and a slave. It has been going on, and on for generations. It is of no use in bringing peace to anything.. It is just adding more and more monemitum to the suffering in the entire world.
If you believe in Religion of any kind, you will suffer and stay asleep time to wake up now !! Who you are is before thought, Just Stop It…
Good Luck…Swami John
And the Bush starts comparing Iraq to Viet Nam. The parallels are striking indeed. But there are major differences. As in the Viet Nam war, America extended the war into neighbouring Laos and Cambodia, leading ultimately to the destruction of Cambodia, for which Pol Pot takes all the blame. The destruction of Cambodia was initiated by Kissinger and Nixon. Nixon, unfortunately died a natural death. The other arch-terrorist, Kissinger is atill alive and kicking. Justice has not been served! Now the neo-con fruitcakes want to expand the war into Iran and Syria. Iran will turn out to be a tougher foe than Cambodia. If the dominoes fall, the entire Middle East goes up in flames. Israel, with its nukes, will be drawn into the fray and the fundamentalist Christian nutbars might get their Armageddon afer all. This is NOT Viet Nam, but many times worse!!!
The US government’s situation reminds me of Homer Simpson who reaches up into two vending machines to get a soft drink & a candy bar & gets stuck. The fire department arrives, and someone suggests they cut his arms off. “They’ll grow back — right?” Finally, one of the firemen says “Have you considered letting go?” “Your point being . . . ?”
If the US were to let go funding Israel & Saudi Arabia, were to let go Iraq, there would be no necessity for cutting its arms off. But our leaders will sooner see the dismemberment of America than let go the yummy prize . . .
Religion, faith, spirituality also give billions of people on earth a sense of hope, a meaning to exhistence, a sense of comfort, a sense of order, and a sense of justice. I am sick of the left bashing religion and spirituality because when this happens you are dismissing the core values of billions. The right to practice one’s relgion is a human right. That being said there are those of every faith that use religion to their own ends for the wrong purposes but these people are by far a small minority.
I’m also sick of the Islamophobic people like Zeropoint. There have been plenty of Muslims who have condemned extremism and are very angry that a small minority has hijacked their religion for evil purposes.
Muslims condemn the atrocity of 911
http://tinyurl.com/3aqqu
By the way over 1 million Iranians held a vigil in commemoration of the victims of 911 shortly after the incident and prayed for the American people. We forget this when there are people out there advocating that we bomb them.
Maybe its time we really get shafted in the ass. An attack in any form against Iran (either pin-pricks, cruise missiles , bunker-busters, etc) will only precipitate the greatest disaster in the middle-east that will make Iraq look like apple pie.
All empires flash brightly before they die. This may actually be a good thing for our future generations as we are already screwed. Who knew that one fat fuck with a pacemaker can do so much damage.
“Today, just about anyone associated with the United States is viewed in the Arab world as a traitor, starting with the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. “Even though their leaders are allied with America, Arabs are more angry at America than ever before,” said Mohammad Salah, Cairo bureau chief of Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper. “They don’t want any more American meddling in the region. … They don’t trust any government that is supported by Washington.””
Let’s meddle no longer. Pull our troops out!
Dichterfreund August 26th, 2007 7:25 pm
That is the PERFECT parable/analogy:- Homer’s candy bar is the oil under the desert.
We have no means with which to convince the powerful to let their candy bar go.
“Ah Swift.”
If you like Swift, you’ll love H.L. Menckin.
The key sentence begins:”Today, just about anyone associated with the United States is viewed in the Arab world as a traitor….” The fact is that any American associated with the current administration is a traitor .
Scott Ritters Target Iran speech:
http://tinyurl.com/2qofsn
Covert operations against Iran have already begun according to Asia Times and other sources:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA27Ak01.html
Iranians by the way are majority Persian not Arab. There is an Arab minority group in Iran in Khuzestan near the Iranian oil fields. There are also Iranian Kurds, Iranian Afghans, Iranian Turkomen, Iranian Azeris and other minority groups.
In this discussion about “religion” I tend to agree with dcbeltway: by far the majority of people in the world have a religion of some sort and I can’t see that changing. Even the anti “religion” ZeroPointField seems to be advocating a peace role for the religion of Buddhism. Kelmer even seems to believe that Buddhism is more “adult” than the religion of the Jews, Muslims and Christians. I think Kelmer’s view needs to be explained with some more reasoning.
My guess is that religion is usually not the main issue at all. If a people’s religion is appealed to in order to move the people to a particular belief or action, does that mean that the religion as such is the main cause or even motivation for that belief or action? I doubt it.
In recent history Christian South African descendants from the Dutch Boer settlers believed that their black African workers were descended from Noah’s son Ham whose descendents were cursed forever to be the servants of all. These Afrikaaners’ particular interpretation of the biblical story (in Genesis Chapters 9 and 10) was very convenient for white farmers looking to use a very cheap local labour source. Does the Christian religion get dismissed because of such an exploitative mis-use of an old Jewish/Christian text?
Similarly does Saint Paul’s use of term “slave” in his biblical letters mean that all Christians for all time were to accept the Roman concept of slavery which Paul took for granted as a Roman citizen? Do we have to reject Christianity because Paul was a person of his time and place? Do we reject Christianity as such because slave traders and owners would quote Paul as it suited them? Christians who fought to stop slavery didn’t take Paul literally on slavery because they understood the whole Christian belief system to be bigger than Paul’s time and place based prejudices.
The Vietnamese who fought off the French and American invaders were largely Buddhist. There were many Buddhists in China and in Japan yet they had very violent revolutions and wars. Do we reject Buddhism because of that?
The belief in reincarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism can easily be used to justify maintaining a rigid caste system because each “being” is meant to be at his/her correct level in the system because of their past wrong-doings. Do we throw out the Hindu or Buddhist baby with the Hindu or Buddhist bath water because of that?
As well as appreciating the good they may do, there are also very good reasons to be critical of every belief system including Atheism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Communism and any other “ism” you might think of. However I believe it is important not to “shoot from the hip”. We need to get more fairminded understandings of what people believe and not just dismiss beliefs because of the politically motivated vilification that seems rather prevalent lately - Especially against Islam.
.
I suggested Buddhism in an earlier quote because of it’s pacifism.
That it is true.
I have been expecting the Islamophobe tag. Tags for those who can not see the whole picture, and discuss matters as such.
It is typical of those getting defensive, instead of discussing the matter at hand. 9/11 is a sympton of the mattet not the justification of my reasoning.
I do not care about the tags that I am labelled. My attempt is to bring to light a problem where there is a problem. And I have only stated the problem that is factual, not concocted or fantastic.
I raise this question to my muslim friends frequently, just as I have raised it here. The dicussions I have can fill many a blog.
And as some of you might have guessed, I do not follow any organized religion. Those who do are no different than neocons in my book. Touch anything, but how dare you make me look at my beliefs?!!!! You infidel!!
I am not an atheist.
I hope that next time some one gets offended by one of my postings, they look at what I have written, and respond in kind within the subject matter, without getting personal.
Zero you are the one who is attacking the beliefs of others and getting personal with their beliefs. I quote you here:
“The bloodthirsty propogandists of the middle eastern religions should be put in a deep freeze somewhere. Or burned, given the world’s warming conditions.”
and
“I do not follow any organized religion. Those who do are no different than neocons in my book.”
When you do that people will respond in turn, you’ll be labeled and people will be offended. Perhaps you should consider a more respectful approach to others and their belief systems even when you strongly disagree. The word is tolerance not antagonism.
I guess you have not problems with bloothirsty propogandists.
I have an opinion about some other people’s beliefs.
I think almost everyone does, and as I said - it is in my book.
I guess you get antagonized by this, then the problem is yours, not mine.
Again, please try to look at the subject I have written and stay within the genius locii
dcbeltway - regarding Scott Ritter’s Target Iran speech: http://tinyurl.com/2qofsn
That is a fantastic speach. Scott has not lost any of his honesty that brought him to speak out during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. If anything, he seems to have become more radical since then, and truly calls a spade a spade.
Zero I have a huge problem with extremists in any belief system: Communism, Nationalism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity etc. However, I don’t paint entire belief systems with a broadbrush and call their believers neocons or bloodthirsty propogandists. Don’t you realize you are being as extreme as those you condemn? People aren’t going to pay attention to your arguments if you put it within the context of this sort of framework. People will dismiss you.
Zero could it be that English is not your first language. Perhaps you don’t intend to come across as so severe in your thinking because of your style or something…??
“Another reason that the religion of Islam must start reigning in their radical Extremists now - themselves
The religion of Islam has no control over who does what with it !!
A good first step would be for the Southern Baptist Christians to start reigning in their extremists. All else will follow !!
Well we all know now that this scenario was well predicted by those in power to be the inevitable result of Saddam’s power vacuum. We know where the blame lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
The problem with any one (left or right)saying that Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia’s only interest is in helping with the situation in Iraq is because of the refugee problem, is very naive.
All have a plethora of motivations from tribal faction support to sweet sweet black gold for gaining footing in Iraq, even under the guise of humanitarian peacekeeping and security..
The object now is to keep Iraq independent of this inevitable tug of war between Sunni and Shiite powers in the region so that Iraqi resources stay Iraqi, and a safe home can exist for those outside of that 2 party system like Christians, Kurds, and the Secular.
Too bad we can’t find some secular social government to keep all that crap out of the cookie jar.
Oh yeah, there was one that we just wiped out and debathified.
‘“All regimes in the Middle East recognize that America has lost the war in Iraq,” said Marwan Kabalan, a political science professor at Damascus University.’
It just doesn’t become official till it’s announced by Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly. Until then, it’s only rumors.
Why muddy the waters? In a culture like the US’ it simply befuddles the drones further. Look at the facts, keep it simple. Bush et al lied the suckers into invading and murdering 100’s of thousands-that alone is enough for a culture with brains and courage like say, the Venezuelans, to not only remove him and his from office, but PROSECUTE him. Then hand him along with Kissinger, over to the world court for trial. That would be an acute and accepted “We’re sorry” to the world. Then convince the drones in this sad ass culture that corporations are NOT our friends. Then lastly, NATIONALIZE energy and communications. The corporations have shown they CANNOT be trusted with the property of the people, so it’s time you took it away from them.
DCBeltway said “Perhaps you should consider a more respectful approach to others and their belief systems even when you strongly disagree. The word is tolerance not antagonism.” I believe, instead, the approach should be that of careful historical analysis and the right to strongly oppose any belief system that violates human rights.
Marx wrote “religion is the opium of the people”, but forgot about all the centuries of inquisitions, crusades, Islamic fratricidal wars, etc. etc., when religion was “the cocaine of the people”, as it clearly is today with the fundamentalist Christians and Islamists. The “opium” or “cocaine” is always used by a small clique of people who want to gain or maintain absolute power over their own people.
Those who become addicted then become either the passive instrument (incapable of action or reasoning) or the violent instrument, viciously supporting the will of the hegemonic group, and totally blind to the fact that this will is secular and not “religious”, but simply a brutal drive to appropriate personal power and wealth. The addicted are increasingly unable to understand the true motives of the hegemonic group, which renders them more and more dangerous because their drugged fantasizing becomes reality for them.
However, today those who resist the quagmire of “substance-dependence” must also resist the “inferiority complex” induced by fundamentalist propaganda that without “religion” the individual is deprived of a value system, or worse, is an “immoral” deviant. It’s vital to remember that for centuries people have struggled to get out of the quagmire and establish values that are not based on brute force or blind obedience, but on concern for the well-being of all the human family of which we are members, and on the principle that “freedom” is basic to human development, individual and collective.
The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, established almost 60 years ago by the United Nations, embodies a world view and the rational values that can lead to a truly humanitarian vision; above all, it states that the human rights defined in this Declaration “represent a broader consensus on human dignity than does any single culture or tradition”. We must insist that the human rights proclaimed in the Declaration become the basis for all human relations, as well as the criteria from which there may be no deviating and no submission to any supernatural “message” which tries to impose the contrary.
The status of the Sunni minority in Iran deserves mentioning. Although somewhere around 15 percent of the population, they are essentially treated as second class citizens. They have had a number of there religious leaders imprisoned and executed, they cannot hold even lower level government posts, and they have had most of their mosques appropriated. Tehran does not have a single sunni mosque left.
Thera you can preach those ideals all you want..you bring up good points but they won’t work in the Middle East.
I would include Marxist/Leninism in the list of destructive religions. It had all the trappings of a religion, even when suppressing “true” religions.
Thanks, everyone, for pitching in.
I decry extremism of any kind. I keep a balance in my views.
I am not about to write the magna carta in my defense here. I find arguing against presumptions very difficult. How large a presumption is religion?
Please come to me with an open framework and we will build.
I stand by my vehemence. Kelmer seems to have understood my first message better, while some people have simply taken it as an attack on their religion, where as infact……..
Never mind.
dcbeltway said “Thera you can preach those ideals all you want..you bring up good points but they won’t work in the Middle East.”
They said the same thing about those in England and the United States who fought against slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century.
The US has worked very hard to make sure that the “ideals” didn’t/don’t work in the Middles East, toppling governments that nationalized their oil, trainng and arming fundamentalist thugs to overthrow a government that had introduced schools for girls (in the hopes of giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam) and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you should have said “you can preach those ideals all you want..you bring up good points, but they won’t work in the United States.”
dcbeltway said “Thera you can preach those ideals all you want..you bring up good points but they won’t work in the Middle East.”
They said the same thing about those in England and the United States who fought against slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century.
The US has worked very hard to make sure that the “ideals” didn’t/don’t work in the Middle East, toppling governments that nationalized their oil, training and arming fundamentalist thugs to overthrow a government that had introduced schools for girls (in the hopes of giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam) and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you should have said “you can preach those ideals all you want..you bring up good points but they won’t work in the United States.”
You all misunderstood. You can preach your ideals about ending relgion all you want and that its the opiate of the masses etc etc but religion is the lifeblood in the Middle East its in the soil in the air people live breath die relgion there its all encompassing its not something you can sepeate out and put it in a box along the lines of seperation of church and state, mosque and state, or synagogue and state. My point is the peoples of the Middle East will not listen to you because religion is important in their lives and their lives in many ways revolve around it. Have you even been to the Middle East? I have many times. Dismissing religion does not make you superior it makes you arrogant and ignorant.
I agree with you all in the fact I think extremism is wrong. However, I strongly disagree when you paint all relgion as being extremist. This view in itself is extreme.
I think Thera does have a good point.
“the approach should be that of careful historical analysis and the right to strongly oppose any belief system that violates human rights.
”
I think what we can add to the above is:
‘and also strongly oppose any government that violates the right of a sovereign people based on their inalienable right to choose their religion.’
The bible belt belief systems are as strong and extreme as that of the people of the middle east or far east. If you can include Capitalism as a religion (which it is as they pray to $$$ ) then pretty much all of the U.S. closely followed by Europe would fall into the extremist category.
The fact is we commit atrocities on a grand scale in the name of Capitalism. Weve sentenced millions to their death in the last 60 years defending our true religion - Capitalism. We continue doing it even today. The middle-east cannot match our fundamentalism even if they try really hard or die for it.
I agree Buddhism is the religion of mature people. It’s definitely not into violence, revenge, war, killing, war profiteering, etc. as the Judeo-Christians/Islamics are. It’s more intellectual and compassionate and is the religion of kindness. I respect their philosophy of nonviolence. I hope to become a Buddhist some day.
Discussion here has gone in a kind of circle. Lots of contributors say things I mostly agree with but then include the odd sentence I might feel like challenging. I like the way various others then pick up that aspect without condemning the rest.
But may I add my person emphasis to this discussion?
Well I believe that currently the dominant “religion” in the world is “Free Market” Capitalism. Other ways of thinking or believing about how the world can be organised are practically unimaginable these days. Capitalism has an incredible tendency to cut off that which threatens it and to reward that which supports it.
It seems to me that never before in history has the power of money to rule been so absolute as now. The “freedom” we in the West practically worship is ultimately just a euphemism for the freedom to allow money and the markets to rule. The Capitalist “invisible hand” at work through “free trade”, money markets and stock markets etc has been changing the world for the benefit of the capitalist system and not for the benefit of the people or the environment.
I believe that the worst fundamentalists of all are those who believe in the problem solving capacity and benevolence of this Capitalist system. Truth is, the system will always serve itself ahead of serving the real needs of people and nature. So then in the light of that, I strongly suspect that even the most fanatical Iranian religious fundamentalists threaten humans and nature with far less harm than “free market” fundamentalists do.
.
wishfullthinker, not all Buddhists follow the rules just like not all Christians follow Christ’s teachings. I guess Tibetan Buddhism is the most pure as they don’t kill, consume alcohol and drugs, no sexual misconduct, lie or steal.