Iranian women's rights activists are initiating a wide campaign demanding an end to legal discrimination against women in Iranian law. The Campaign, "One Million Signatures Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws," which aims to collect one million signatures to demand changes to discriminatory laws against women, is a follow-up effort to the peaceful protest of the same aim, which took place on June 12, 2006 in Haft-e Tir Square in Tehran. Preparation activities in support of this campaign commenced in June of 2006 and the campaign will be officially launched on August 27, during a seminar entitled: "The Impact of Laws on Women's Lives."
The collection of a million signatures in support of changes to the law is only one of several aims of this campaign. The Campaign will also aim to achieve the following:
1. Promotion of Collaboration and Cooperation for Social Change: This campaign intends to serve as catalyst in promoting cooperation between a wide spectrum of social activists in creating and advocating for positive social change.
2. Identification of Women's Needs and Priorities: This collaborative campaign aims to develop connections and linkages with a broad base of women's groups from different backgrounds. Direct contact between equal rights defenders and other women's and citizens' groups will allow those involved in the campaign to identify the everyday concerns of women, especially their legal needs and problems. On the other hand, this direct contact will increase awareness among the general population about the inequities that exist within the law.
3. Amplifying Women's Voices: Through this campaign, the organizers hope to be able to connect with groups whose demands are left unheard. The campaign, relying on the needs identified by women themselves, aims to amplify the voices of women whose needs are often not addressed at the national policy level.
4. Increasing Knowledge, Promoting Democratic Action: This campaign is committed to increasing and improving knowledge through dialogue, collaboration, and democratic action. The campaign steadfastly adheres to the notion that real and sustainable change can be achieved only if it is community and needs driven and reflective of the desires and demands of the society at large. Changes to women's status in society need to be based on the belief that legal problems faced by women are not a private matter, but rather symptomatic of larger social problems faced broadly by women. In other words, this campaign is committed to carrying out bottom-up reform and to creating change through grassroots and civil society initiatives, and seeks to strengthen public action and empower women.
5. Paying our Dues: The initiators of this campaign recognize that social change and the elimination of injustice are not easily achieved. It is through commitment to collaboration and hard work that we will be able to build the solidarity necessary to create change. Surely this solidarity and collaboration in pushing forth the objectives of the campaign will have a positive impact on the future of our country. The experiences of women's democratic movements around the globe, and particularly, in countries within the region, have demonstrated that solidarity and commitment to the goals of collective action are key components to the successful elimination of discrimination. The struggle for equal rights in Iran will indeed be a lengthy, difficult and arduous process. The true path to achievement of equality will not be paved through existing power structures or a dialogue solely with men and women in positions of power. Rather, achieving the goals of this campaign will be based largely on a strategy which seeks to raise awareness among individual women and citizens about their identity and their status within society.
6. The Power of Numbers: The successful implementation of this campaign will prove once and for all that the demand for changes to discriminatory laws is not limited to a few thousand women, who have supported these types of efforts in the past. In fact, the successful implementation of this campaign will demonstrate that support for legal changes are broad-based and that a large majority of men and women are suffering from the inequities that are promoted by Iranian law. The Campaign will strive to demonstrate that women are, and have consistently employed a variety of means and venues to voice their objections to the laws, such as the writing of books, articles, production of films and other forms of artistic expression, and through social activism. Those women with fewer and more limited resources have demonstrated their objection through more difficult channels, such as recourse in the courts, running away from home, or more destructive means such as suicide, or self-immolation. In an effort to demonstrate the widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo, the Campaign will aim to highlight the many strategies used by women to challenge discrimination in the law.
7. Power in Plurality: The successful implementation of this campaign will also shed light on the fact that the demand for changes in the law is not only voiced by a specific group of women. In an effort to silence the voices of women calling for change, critics claim that demands for legal change are expressed by a particular group of women, who are out of touch with the realities of ordinary Iranian women. These critics wrongly claim that only elite and socially and economically advantaged women seek changes to laws, in direct opposition to the real needs and sensitivities of the masses of Iranian women. These claims are indeed incorrect, as discriminatory and unjust laws negatively impact the lives of all women, whether they are educated or not, live in upper class neighborhoods or poor communities, are married or single, live in rural areas or in cities, and so on. The Campaign will work to address some of these issues.
Timeline: This campaign will be ongoing. The first phase of the Campaign will focus on the collection of one million signatures demanding changes to discriminatory laws. It is a fair assessment to claim that the first phase of the Campaign will be carried out over one to two years, after which the campaign will move into its next set of phases focused on proposing new laws.
The Demands of Campaign are not in Contradiction to Islamic Law: The demand to reform and change discriminatory laws is not in contradiction to Islamic law and is in line with Iran's international commitments. Iran is a signatory to the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights and as such, is required to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Based on these commitments, the government of Iran needs to take specific action in reforming laws that promote discrimination.
On the other hand, these demands are in no way contradictory to the foundations of Islam. In fact, the changes being demanded by this campaign have been a point of contention and debate among Islamic jurists and scholars for some time. Ayatollah Sanei'i and Ayatollah Bojnourdi, to name a few, have for years called for a revision and reform of laws which are discriminatory against women, and have explicitly stated that such reforms are indeed not contradictory to the basic beliefs of Islam. A million signatures supporting changes to discriminatory laws, will demonstrate to decision-makers and the public at large that a large segment of the Iranian population is in support of revising discriminatory laws against women and that these demands are not limited to a small segment of society. This campaign will also demonstrate to law makers that Iranian women are serious in their demands to change current laws.
Implementation of the Campaign: This campaign will rely largely on face-to-face education and contact to achieve its goals. It will be implemented through the following strategies:
1. Collection of signatures through door-to-door contact and dialogue with individual women.
2. Collection of signatures in places and events in which women gather, and where dialogue and discussions with groups of women can be carried out. Public locations, such as parks, universities, production centers, factories, health centers, religious gatherings, sports centers, and public transportation centers (metro, buses, etc), where groups of women can be accessed, will be identified by members of Campaign for the purpose of initiating dialogue about the law and collecting signatures in support of changes to discriminatory laws.
3. Implementation of seminars and conferences with the intent of raising the profile of the campaign, promoting dialogue, identifying supporters and collecting signatures.
4. Collection of signatures through the internet. The internet will be utilized to share information about the campaign, including legal educational materials, and those interested in supporting this effort can sign petitions related to the Campaign.
Volunteer Education: In order to successfully implement the Campaign a large number of volunteers will be recruited. Volunteers will receive legal education as well as information on the campaign. Several committees have been established within the campaign, including the "Education Committee" which is charged with implementing educational workshops for all volunteers. All those interested in cooperating with the campaign and collecting signatures will be provided with training on legal issues and laws; the aims and strategies of the campaign; face-to-face and door-to-door education techniques; public education and outreach techniques, etc.
All volunteers interested in becoming involved in face-to-face education must participate in the workshops.
It should be noted, that volunteers don't necessarily need to be experts in women's legal issues. These workshops implemented by the "Education Committee" will provide an overview for the lay person with respect to legal rights of women.
Scope of Activities: The activities of this campaign will not be limited to Tehran, and women's rights activists in the provinces are strongly encouraged to participate in this campaign. Groups and individuals based in the provinces can participate in workshops in Tehran and begin campaign activities in their provinces. Larger numbers of women and women's rights groups interested in receiving training and/or participating in this campaign can request special workshops to be held in their respective provinces. Additionally, Iranians based outside Iran can submit signatures in support of the demands of the Campaign by mail or email.
Minimum Age for Signatures: Women and men signing on in support of the demands of the Campaign must be at least 18 years of age. Signatures will be collected in special forms developed for this purpose, and will also be published on the web.
Support for the Campaign: Participation in this campaign is purely voluntary. Volunteers are asked to support the Campaign through a contribution of 5,000 tomans (roughly 6 USD). These funds will be the major source of support for the activities of the campaign. In order to create change, women have often had to rely on their own limited resources, financial or other, such as time and energy. Women have always managed to rely on their capacities and their beliefs to create change. The success of this campaign, too, will benefit from women's immense commitment.
Contact Information: Those interested in supporting or joining this effort should feel free to contact us, through the following means:
· Web address: www.we-change.org
· Email address: forequality@gmail.com
· Address: Iran – Tehran - P.O. Box: 14335-851
Supporters:
1. Shirin Ebadi (Nobelist) 2. Simin Behbahani (Poet) 3. Shahla Lahiji (Publisher) 4. Shahla Ezazi (Professor) 5. Babak Ahmadi (Writer and Translator) 6. Farzaneh Taheri (Translator) 7. Tahmineh Milani (Director) 8. Manijeh Hekmat (Director) 9. Maedeh Tahmasebi (Artist) 10. Farhad Aish (Artist) 11. Narges Mohamadi (Activist) 12. Naser Zarafshan (Atorney) 13. Ardeshir Rostami (artist) 14. Moniro Ravanipour (Novelist) 15. Babak Takhti (Novelist) 16. Banafsheh Hejazi (Writer and Researcher) 17. Mahvash Sheikh-ol-eslami (Director) 18. Shahla Sherkat (Journalist) 19. Farideh Ghairat (Atorney) 20. Omran Salahi (Satirist) 21. Fariborz Raees-Dana (Economist) 22. Majid Tavalaee (Journalist) 23. Nahid Tavassoli (Writer and Journalist) 24. Jafar Panahi (Director)
Campaign Members (In Alphabetical Order):
1. Tara Ahmadi 2. Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani 3. Parvaneh Ale Bouyeh 4. Taraneh Amir Teymouri 5. Zara Amjadian 6. Elnaz Ansari 7. Parvin Ardalan 8. Faranak Arta 9. Zohre Arzani 10. Maryam Bahraman 11. Jila Baniyaghoob 12. Vida Biglari 13. Hana Darabi 14. Fariba Davoudi Mohajer 15. Shahla Entesari 16. Mahdis Farah-bakhshi 17. Farideh Ghaeb 18. Sepideh Gilasian 19. Bahare Hedayat 20. Maryam Hosseinkhah 21. Mahboubeh Hosseinzadeh 22. Nahid Jafari 23. Jelve Javaheri 24. Mahsa Jazini 25. Parisa Kakai'e 26. Pooye Madadi 27. Homa Maddah 28. Golnaz Malek 29. Nahid Mirhaj 30. Maryam Mirza 31. Khadijeh Moghadam 32. Rezvan Moghadam 33. Firouzeh Mohajer 34. Mona Mohammadzadeh 35. Iman Mozafari 36. Fakhri Nami 37. Sedighe Nasiri 38. Elnaz Nateghi 39. Fatemeh Nejati 40. Negar Rahbar 41. Setareh Sajadi 42. Farnaz Seyfi 43. Fakhri Shadfar 44. Mahsa Shekarloo 45. Mansoureh Shoajee 46. Elahe Surush-nia 47. Tala't Taghinia 48. Bita Tahbaz 49. Susan Tahmasebi 50. Narges Tayebat 51. Parvin Zarrabi
Click HERE to go directly to the petition.
The first box asks for your NAME
The second is for your EMAIL address.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
This change needs to happen from within.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.aspAuthorID=12449&id=22837
I hope they are successful in this move.
Actually, John S., make that FOUR women! :-)
1. Nazanin Fatehi
2. Malak Ghorbany
3. Ashraf Kalhori
4. Hajieh Esmailvand
This effort has taken a life of its own in a way that has proven beyond my wildest imagination. So let's keep rolling guys. I mean, just stop for a minute and think about how our individual signatures, voices, and efforts have actually SAVED the lives of four beautiful innocent women.
This news of yours, combining with the other news that the Iranian President wishes to have a debate with Bush suggests that true rational and modern ideas are starting to permeate the hearts and minds of at least some progressive leaders, such as Mahmud or Mahmood, Ahmadinezhad, Ahmadi-Nejad, Ahmadi Nejad, Ahmady Nejad (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jad).
It seems to me that IF this leader and other leaders can begin to address our key WORLD issues with deep concerns for senses of logic, rationality, enlightened and more universal views, and a respect for change and civilization and human progress, then this coming century of ours may turn into a period of developing glory, rather than agony. I am slowly coming to think that the Law as a device for policy and DECISION making will (and probably SHOULD) likely trump the traditional governmental modes that utilize Legislators and Executives who manage the governing 'mechanisms' and are finding it most difficult to do so because COMPLEXITIES and leadership training are not sufficiently adequate to deal with complexity of REAL systems' dynamics. Growing INTER-DEPENDENCE will make simple 'solutions' to COMPLEX problems more impossible without technical and logical methods to do so. Also, EVIDENCE must be used to overwhelm dysfunctional fantasy and trends toward miscalculations and grave errors in judgment.
I think that our JUDICIAL SYSTEMS at the Nation State levels and the accompanying International levels (which will continue to emerge ever more efficaciously) are more prepared to handle Complexity. In addition, their organized and evidence laden ways of ways of respecting defensible 'facts' and RATIONAL ANALYTIC methods may well trump the importance of both our LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE BRANCH modes of properly formulating and 'solving' important human problems.
WE may be learning that PLATO had the right ideas about TRUE leadership, at too early a time. We need 'leaders' who should be identified and trained early to be 'servants of ALL the people'. They must be trained to be WISE (far wiser than the ever developing people who are to be 'served' if that is possible) They must be as 'selfless' as they can be, charismatic, compassionate, truly understanding, experienced in the ways of the WORLD, and attempting always to gain a greater comprehension of what REALITY IS and what it demands when facing KEY problems. They must strive always to truly UNDERSTAND, and not simply mouthe the words.
I know I am not defining either a MAN or a WOMAN. I am defining UNIVERSALLY INCLINED HUMAN BEINGS who must be taught to resemble the historical archetypes that have existed in our pasts and exist now in embryo. Democracy -- whatever its various stripes and features in different places and different times -- doesn't always have the ability to bring the RIGHT leadership into being. Look around in these very troubling days!
We are seeing much of that now. The way to guarantee better choices? To bring our problems to the best minds and hearts for wise review and decision-making; and even more important -- to bring the best education to ALL the people so that choices of leaders will be consonant with the creative and PEACEFUL advances of our ever developing and changing CIVILIZATIONS. Educated Electorates are truly the sina qua non for the selection of the BEST POSSIBLE LEADERSHIPS. That process is going on now, and you're part of the movement to do so. Congratulations!
Dick
Can you explain to me what you mean by a 'puppet'? And who in your mind -- TODAY -- is a world leader, and WHY? Which mullahs rule? I'd be grateful for some researchable information from you!
Sincerely,
Dick
I agree with you that it does make a difference when enough people speak out against injustice and oppression. As you pointed out, these petitions have saved four women's lives so far. Amnesty International also has had success with organizing protests and letter-writing campaigns. I think the reason for this success is because even the most vicious tyrants want to be seen as virtuous and reasonable, and so they sometimes make concessions to maintain the facade of being reasonable. Speaking out has another important benefit, and that is to let the Iranian women know that people outside Iran care about them and support their struggle for freedom.
I was stunned to read your comment referring to Ahmadinejad as a progressive leader. He is a religious fanatic who talks about wiping Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust ever took place, and believes the hidden Imam will return during his lifetime at which point the world will come to an end (probably with the help of the nuclear weapons his country is developing). During his tenure, women's rights have taken a leap backward (not that they were so great before him).
As to why he wants to debate Bush, that is a no-brainer. He may be a vicious, religious fanatic, but he is articulate. Why wouldn't he relish a debate with Bush, who (to put it charitably) is a little challenged in this area?
As for your proposal of using Plato's Republic as the model for the future governance, it both horrified me and reminded me of the political philosophy of Leo Strauss (the father of neo-conservativism). Strauss believed that we, the ignorant masses (ignorant in Plato's and Strauss's opinion, not mine), are incapable of grasping reality (definitely a Platonic idea), governing ourselves, or running our own lives. He advocated governance by the elite few (Plato's philosopher kings), who would have absolute power over the rest of us, and would control us using religion, nationalism and "noble lies." He believed in the "natural right" of such elites to rule, and rejected the natural (individual) rights (plural) to which our Declaration of Independence refers. Is that what you advocate?
I believe Plato was wrong on reality and on politics, and that Aristotle and John Locke were right. Aristotle rejected Plato's World of Forms and correctly maintained that there is only one reality, namely the natural world in which we live. All humans are capable of grasping this reality through the application of logical reasoning to the information they receive from their sense perceptions. Therefore, people do not need the elite few to gain (as you put it) a "greater comprehension of what REALITY IS." Locke's great contribution was his recognition that all humans have natural rights (to life, liberty, property) that are not given to them by society, and which society therefore has no right to take away. He understood that the purpose for having a government is to protect those rights. As I am sure you realize, Locke's political philosophy greatly influenced the US Founding Fathers in establishing our system of government.
I have a very different dream for the future than you, but unfortunately I do not see it happening any time soon. I dream of a future where the sanctity of the individual, and his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, become universally accepted principles throughout the world, and where all governments limit themselves to their only proper role, namely, securing individual rights and freedoms.
I think I may have miscommunicated by not being careful enough to make it clear what I meant by 'progressive'. But you were reading things into my comment that I think YOU misconstrued too. My comment to Lily was:
"This news of yours, combining with the other news that the Iranian President wishes to have a debate with Bush suggests that true rational and modern ideas are starting to permeate the hearts and minds of at least some progressive leaders, such as Mahmud or Mahmood, Ahmadinezhad, Ahmadi-Nejad, Ahmadi Nejad, Ahmady Nejad (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jad)."
Ahmadinejad is a legitimate leader in IRAN, being properly placed there by the actions of millions and millions of Iranian persons. I have no clear idea of the propriety of the 'voting' mechanisms that placed him in his current governmental position (do you?), but my value system permits me to be grateful that he is willing to interact in order to defend his positions as he knows his 'IRANIAN objectivity'. Cultural differences affecting behaviors and attitudes of our 'leaders' permeate all cultures and in that sense neither the USA nor Iran are any different in that sense. Is Bush a progressive thinker and actor? Judgments about 'progressivity' are relative in that sense.
I am grateful that a nation's head, a leader if you will, such as Ahmadinejad is by my definition to be thanked for his suggestion, desire and willingness to DEBATE with other nation state heads, such as Bush. It would be a fascinating debate. Don't you think so? Why has Bush declined? The WORLD is in jeopardy and WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD need, and have a right, to know what all of this wrangling is all about. Right? We must abandon the guidance of insubstantial, rhetorical OPINION, and try mightily to latch on to FACTS that our leaders know and use. The lives of us common folk everywhere are at stake on OUR WORLD. The 'games' seem to be going 'critical'. WE THE PEOPLE need to be ever more INFORMED!
I am of the deep emotional and intellectual position that tells me that the way to AVOID war is to have potential combatant nations understand one another through dialog, and not PREJUDGE what will eventuate. There are formal and informal and more universal ways to transmit better ideas of what issues and personalities are all about. If I am 'sinning' by suggesting that the Iran leader is 'progressive' in that sense, so be it! I'm sorry that YOU are stunned, by a word. I know, that for me, I want the TRUTH always, and in our present world I'm not certain who is 'moral' and 'right'. Do you?
Perhaps I should have said in my comment " ... some informed and articulate leaders such as ... ". I did not do so, and I'm sorry that I contributed to your misunderstanding of my basic intent, which is to more fully understand the grave and most dangerous issues that are being generated in our present day world. I guess that's why we humans were designed with brains, tongues, and reasoning power (i.e.LOGIC).
Dick
P.S. Is Ahmadinejad a "vicious, religious fanatic" as you suggest? Where is the 'evidence'? How do you measure such, and where can I look at the evidence that you must have to make such an extraordinary statement about a person who I suspect you do not know personally?
You wrote: "Ahmadinejad is a legitimate leader in IRAN, being properly placed there by the actions of millions and millions of Iranian persons."
First of all, the Iranian people had a very limited choice of candidates (even more so than usual) in the last election, since the mullahs had eliminated the more reform-minded candidates from the ballot. In fact, many Iranians were so disgusted that they boycotted the election. So Ahmadinejad is not a democratically-elected leader. Second of all, let's not forget that Hitler was a democratically-elected leader, and he did not even have the benefit of having most of his opposition removed from the ballot. Did that make Hitler progressive, objective or reasonable? I think not.
My comment about Bush's inarticulate speech was an attempt at humor. Even if Bush were as eloquent and articulate as Winston Churchill, it would still be a grave mistake for him to debate Ahmadinejad. If you cannot see this, consider whether it would have been proper for FDR or Churchill to debate Hitler. Debating Ahmadinejad, like debating Hitler, gives them the cloak of reasonableness that they could never achieve on their own.
You wrote: "Cultural differences affecting behaviors and attitudes of our 'leaders' permeate all cultures . . . Judgments about 'progressivity' are relative in that sense."
I will admit to being an moral absolutist and not a moral relativist. I believe that stoning or hanging a woman or child for "crimes against chastity," is absolutely morally wrong, and no matter what anyone's culture or religion says, no matter what the rulers or the majority want, it is still wrong.
You wrote: "The way to AVOID war is to have potential combatant nations understand one another through dialog."
Chamberlain tried that with Hitler in 1938, and believed he had achieved "peace in our time." We all know how that turned out. Strength, not appeasement, is the best way to avoid war.
You wrote: "Is Ahmadinejad a "vicious, religious fanatic" as you suggest? Where is the 'evidence'? How do you measure such, and where can I look at the evidence that you must have to make such an extraordinary statement about a person who I suspect you do not know personally?"
There is more than enough evidence coming straight from the horse's mouth. Ahmadinejad has not exactly been shy about expressing his views. Perhaps you have not been listening, or have preferred to believe he doesn't mean what he says. I judge a person's character and intentions from his actions and from his words (particularly those not meant to be self-serving). Ahmadinejad's words and actions damn him. I did not personally know Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, but that does not mean I do not have enough evidence about their characters to condemn them. As for my evidence of the leap backward for women's rights, haven't you read any of Lily's articles?
STEP BY STEP
I never said that Iran was a DEMOCRACY. I presume that Ahmadinejad's election was appropriate within Iranian law or he probably would have been ousted by now. Am I wrong? I really don't KNOW! Do YOU KNOW?
In the USA we vote usually only, in our Presidential elections, for one of two candidates, realistically speaking : Republican or Democrat. Is that a proper level of CHOICE? Our choices seem to be limited, pragmatically speaking, too.
I never suggested that Ahmadinejad was elected by a 'democratic' process. They do what they do; we in the USA do what we do! Should we respect both modes while building changes into lection processes?
Are you suggesting that since Hitler was democratically elected, that the German system was wrong? Was the Nazi party legitimate, legally? Or was it a reality that the GERMAN people did not know how to choose? Or that Hitler was not rational in his pursuit of what he intended as he campaigned and finally won? What relevance does Hitler make in this present context of ours? Are you suggesting that the Iranian hierarchy resemble the Germans: Muslim Nazis? Anti-Semitic? I hope not!
In my opinion I would have been grateful if Hitler had debated with either or both Roosevelt and Churchill. Deliberations about BASICS, differences,similarities, problems, might have influenced other WORLD leaders and might have illuminated WE, THE PEOPLE OF EARTH who eventually had to man the ramparts in a devastating WORLDWIDE WAR. We have far better ways to inform PEOPLE in our present world, than we did when I was an information and wisdom seeking youngster.
I am not a moral absolutist, because I see morality(ies) developing and changing as existential modes alter through time. Ever new interrelationships that dot our existential complexities on our GLORIOUS, GOD-GIVEN planet are always appearing as potential and real events to be coordinated into new understandings. My philosophy suggests -- to me -- that WE, THE PEOPLE are evolving always, and that we are being transformed, and transform our selves, with a goal in mind to reach a sort of DYNAMIC and PERFECT conscious state that was, roughly, characterized by greater philosophers than Locke and Hobbes. Those philosophers? Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Whitehead -- as I see the patterns. I see us in historical terms as creating our IDEAL SELVES, but we are not anywhere near that state-condition YET! But we are progressing by demolishing our stupidities as we grow-up!
I have solidly backed 'human rights all of my adult life and -- if you read my comments to Lily (more than one) in this column and others, you will see that I was always in favor of her way to change women's rights, in Iran and all over the world. Read my material therein closely and you will see that I am trying to get major dangerous issue into the JUDICIAL SYSTEMS and out of the hands, when necessary, of Legislators and Executives and Managers -- about which I know a great deal.
I am a believer that 'brains' and 'hearts' were designed by a designer (God/Nature?) in ways that suggested that the forms containing them were NOT to be destroyed. Meaning? There ought to be no killing, certainly not the highest form -- us HUMAN BEINGS. The procedure? Talk out differences PEACEFULLY and LOGICALLY ALWAYS (Ideally).
Hitler again? Do you suggest that ARMED strength is better than appeasement is the best way to avoid WAR? How does such an intent limit itself? Are you a believer in the link between 'winning' and having ever better weapons? Do you believe in the technologies of weapons development as ways to improve the probabilities of PEACE in our (ever growing more dangerous) times? I've spent many of the years of my life in lets call it 'war affiliated research and development'. Believe me that threat and weapons development reach ever for the better. Where does threat become action. If you think you have winners, you may use them. Like NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, RADIOLOGICAL? Appeasement and Strength. Full of ILLOGIC? Tell me! Does 'strength' include communication, cooperation, negotiation, dialogs, triologs, multilogs?
Would you and I ever be friends if we started to use language like "You're a fanatic!" Your child is a vicious animal!", Your father was an ignorant jackass!", "Your mate is one of the most ignorant persons i have ever met!" Move now to the public information level instead of the personal level, and start saying the same things about 'leaders'! Does such a use of language facilitate or hinder the development of needed dialog and solutions to important problems? Or would YOU avoid significant and peaceful interaction and take the road of lesser and lesser knowledge and inhibiting 'secrecy'?
Who and where is the 'horse's mouth' from which you develop your opinions? I seem to have to work hard intellectually to develop my stock of knowledge and impressions, like most people I know who value the TRUTH! I don't believe in efficacious intuitive knowledge WITHOUT prior detailed knowledge. There is an a priori requirement before one can have an INFORMED INTUITION. Intuition is not an unprepared insight! I have 18 Grandchildren, many of them less than 15 years old, but at this stage in their lives I wouldn't take their advice about whether I should take a new job or make an investment, too seriously. All of them are very intelligent, but. I need evidence and analyses to make my decisions, not quick guesses and uninformed opinions. I want to be as realistic as I can be, and destroy my inclination in myself to entertain fantasy. I pray for wisdom and guidance and for the ability to 'think-straight'.
I must admit that I have not read many of Ahmadinejad's public (or private?) statements. This might be an excellent reason why he, and his opinions and convictions, should become better known to us via his willingness to debate other leaders in a UN or USA setting. We might come to KNOW this important WORLD personality better and find him more or less wanting than you seem to suggest that YOU do know!
As far as I am aware I have read all of Lily's articles precisely because I am trying to understand. Have you? There is a lack of information about you in gather thus far. You have published no articles and have made only a few comments. You have not made your biography available to me (and perhaps no one else). Why? Getting to know you might help to understand you and your clearly 'concerned' positions.
Ever, in good faith and sincerity,
Dick
P.S. When I was a young man I knew a young woman from Greece whose name was 'Genie'. We were serving as U.N. Internes with 52 other young persons from all over the world (1948).
From some of my research files. Just go to the I-net and copy the appropriate http's into the goto slot and access the chosen document. I suggest the first one about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the most appropriate one relating to our discussions. For additional spice read the 'letter to Bush'. The last entry here. Each is most interesting, at least to me! It beats intuition and opinion every time.
Dick
===============
*** President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
=============
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khamenei
=============
Presidency in Islamic Republic of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran
=============
Supreme Leader of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
===============
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iran
================
Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad%27s_letter_to_George_W._Bush
=================
You seem unable to condemn anyone, even Hitler. Do you really think that if FDR and Churchill had talked to Hitler, everything would have worked out, and that Hitler's aggression would have magically dissolved along with his determination to exterminate the Jews? If so, why did Chamberlain fail to achieve "peace in our time?"
I am definitely suggesting that the militant Islamist movement (both Shiite and Sunni components), in many ways resembles the totalitarian movements of the 20th century, ie fascism and communism. Iran has been one of the major spiritual and financial supporters of the militant Islamist movement, since 1979. The words "fascism" and "totalitarianism" are accurate in describing both the militant Islamist movement and the Iranian regime. As for the Iranian regime's attitude towards Jews and Israel, its desire and efforts to destroy Israel are well documented.
Regarding your discussion of philosophers, I never mentioned Hobbes, and I completely disagree with his political philosophy. Locke, whom I greatly admire, was outstanding for his political philosophy, even if he was unremarkable in other areas of philosophy. Kant and Hegel were, and still are, incredibly influential, particularly Kant, so by that standard I suppose you could call them great. However, in my opinion, their influence on Western Civilization has been profoundly negative. If I had to name one philosopher who, I believe, has made the greatest positive contribution to Western Civilization, it would be Aristotle.
You wrote: "Would you and I ever be friends if we started to use language like "You're a fanatic!" . . . "
This is quite amusing considering the fact that I have not made any ad hominem attacks against you, while you, on the other hand, did launch several ad hominem attacks against me in your penultimate comment. To my knowledge, I have never met a murderous fanatic. If I did meet such a person, I would have no interest in becoming his/her friend.
You asked: "Who and where is the 'horse's mouth' from which you develop your opinions?"
I assumed that you were familiar with the expression "from the horse's mouth" - my mistake. The "horse" in this case is Ahmadinejad, and I was making the point that there is more than enough evidence of his views and intentions from his own words and actions. "Intuition" has nothing to do with it. Ahmadinejad has made it clear who he is, just as the Iranian regime has been making its nature and intentions clear for the last 27 years. If you do not see it, then maybe it is because you do not want to see it.
I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me about Iran and Iranian leaders, but it really is not necessary. I have been following the events in Iran since before the 1979 revolution. At that time, I was living in London and had several Iranian friends (people who had grown up in Iran and went to London for their studies). These friends sparked my interest in Iran, which has continued to this day. As for Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush, of course I read it - did you forget that Lily put it on her Gather page? However, I interpreted it much differently than you did. Are you aware that Mohammed told his followers that they should not wage holy war against non-believers without first giving the non-believers the choice of either accepting Islam or paying the dhimmi tax? If non-believers accept one of these two terms, then Muslims must not attack them. Ahmadinejad's letter is very consistent with Mohammed's instructions ie he is giving us a chance to mend our ways and accept Islam. If we do not accept, then his conscience will be clear when he attacks us. Personally, I am not prepared to accept Islam or any other religion, or any other tyranny.
You asked whether I have read Lily's articles. I know Lily personally, I admire her tremendously, and I have read all of her articles and comments. I have signed every petition she has sent my way (and forwarded it to my friends and relatives). She is the person who introduced me to Gather and suggested that I join, which I did because I am interested in, and enjoy, discussions of political issues.
(SORRY LILY M.)
Let me make a final, though perhaps drawn out, point that MAY wrap up this debate.
The WORLD as we know it seems to me to be hovering near potential extinction as time moves on. Anger, ignorance, lack of reality in some minds and hearts of many WORLD leaders move too quickly toward violent non-solutions to major and minor human issues. Yet, the way that politics and government are now organized makes 'ego-preservation' a major block to seeking NON-VIOLENT solutions, along with misguided ideas about the 'propriety' of interactions.
God gave us human beings some weapons with which to cope as we seek knowledge and understanding! They are logical reasoning power, the capacity to store information and especially to 'link' concepts and ideas with one another, and mouths and vocal chords to foster effective INTER-communication. To be wise as we try to progress on our planet, we ned to note that we are dependent upon one another for skills with which to build, and with creative minds that are able to imagine glories (or devastations' that are possible. I prefer the 'glories', the 'beauties', the 'happinesses'!
Thinking is a form of SELF inter-communication. In some sense we communicate with ourselves when we are THINKING. Thus, I suppose, one might say that if you and I SEEM to be other, the use of thought exchange is a mode of potential unitary collective THINKING. I see few other WEAPONS as powerful as a human desire to try to know another person. (For example, it may have been my inability to shape linguistically what I meant to say, but I NEVER said that YOU are a fanatic, and I suspect you know that. But you made the inappropriate accusation and I KNOW I did not say so.I did however want to make an important point, however, between one on one, and one on many.). So there will be error in communications that should never end up with physical violence, or even harsh words (which IS a highly IDEALISTIC hope on my part.)
So YES, I want conversations always, especially where UNDERSTANDINGS ARE MUCH NEEDED, even if they end up fruitlessly. Mind-Sets and the inability to attempt to find common-ground is a grave danger. All of my adult life I have been in positions where I have tried to solve difficult COMPLEX problems. I am well acquainted with analytical methods and logical procedures -- by necessity. I also know that the major part of SOLVING PROBLEMS is to know, as fully as possible, what the PROBLEM IS. There are serious persons in the field of decision-making methodology that might say that it takes far more than 50% of the time that it takes to solve an important problem fully on the partial task of DEFINING the nature of the problem. This suggests that to know the thought processes and the information content of KEY players where there is a problem, is most important and very necessary.There is no better way than to have interactive dialog whether that is Churchill with Hitler, or Bush with Ahmadinejad, or symbolically, X with Y. Face to face communication is FAR MORE than word exchange. Did you see the Ahmadinejad interview with the '60 minute' interviewer on TV. I 'saw' very little that I disliked about the Iranian President there. It was free flowing and most interesting. "Getting to know you" is a most important process, and not to be avoided because of some protocol issue. We are -- each and every one -- a CHILD OF GOD. 'Respect for one another' might be an eleventh rule to add to the Mosaic Decalogue. (Love thy neighbor?)(Work out differences and then PROGRESS?)
MY real defense for always hoping that there will be exchanges in NON-VIOLENT ways -- especially in thoughtful dialogs -- has to do with my beliefs in, lets call them, 'spirituality'. I have spent much time on the Science-Theology issue along with links to theories of EVOLUTION. You can get a look see at some of my positions on these deepest topics in my earliest GATHER ARTICLES. They touched heavily on the issue of what is still called INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The bottom line here is that 'the God/Nature creating intentionality seems to be to create COMPLEX ENTITIES throughout our UNIVERSE, which are designed to survive'. I have been a Whiteheadian (philosophically speaking) for many decades of my life. I see little gain in mastering the works of many POLITICAL philosophers, but GREAT GAIN in trying to master the science/spirituality issues of GREAT current philosophers like Whitehead. I think I have a good grasp of the Whitehead fundamental model. In his masterwork, PROCESS and REALITY he speaks about 'eternal objects' (meaning ENTITIES prior to materialization: say the 'blueprint' of the entity which is eternal. Soul Theory?). Translated it adds up to 'Don't physically destroy entities (human beings especially). The creators -- God/Nature or Nature/God as you choose -- intend to have an endless EVOLUTION (this is DYNAMISM) of ever grander and finer newer and better ENTITIES as TIME marches on.
SO?
SHARE. TALK. RESPECT. LOVE. LEARN. JUDGE CAREFULLY. COOPERATE. BUILD. EXPERIENCE. EXPERIMENT. IMPROVE. and most important, LIVE AND HELP TO LET LIVE.
On the negative side: DON'T DESTROY LIFE, DON'T PRACTICE VIOLENCE. DON'T HATE OTHERS OR YOUR SELF. DON'T WITHHOLD KEY INFORMATION. DON'T DESPAIR -- and so on and on.
Dick
No apologies needed whatsoever! I am delighted to see this type of exchange of ideas, information and intellectual debate. :-)
You keep insisting that dialogue is the answer to every problem, yet you avoided answering the question I posed at the beginning of my last comment, which was:
"Do you really think that if FDR and Churchill had talked to Hitler, everything would have worked out, and that Hitler's aggression would have magically dissolved along with his determination to exterminate the Jews? If so, why did Chamberlain fail to achieve "peace in our time?""
I agree that the world is hovering near potential extinction, but the reason for this is precisely because we here in the West are not taking seriously the threat posed by Iran and militant Islamism. Iran has been the number one sponsor of Islamist terrorism for years. It regularly hosts terror summits to which it invites the who's who of Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda), and discusses strategies for destroying the "American Great Satan." While the Iranian regime may not like the Sunnis, it is willing to work with Sunni terrorists to achieve this common goal. That goal will come within their reach once Iran develops nuclear weapons. To make things even worse, Iran now has a leader who believes that he was surrounded by green light from heaven during his United Nations speech, that the Hidden Imam will return in his lifetime, and that it is up to him to create the global chaos required to hasten that return.
You say we should "live and let live," as if that were an option. On what planet do the militant Islamists want to "live and let live," because it certainly is not on Planet Earth? Wouldn't it be much more accurate to describe their motto as "die while slaughtering as many people as possible?" What exactly is the "common ground" between our desire to live and the militant Islamists desire to kill or enslave us?
Don't you think that the Sept 11 victims, or the victims of the Bali, Madrid and London bombings wanted to live and let live? What about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, that the militant Islamists have already murdered or enslaved in numerous African countries, in the Middle East and in Asia (most of them Muslims, by the way)? What about Atefeh and all the other victims of the Iranian regime? Don't you think they wanted to live and let live? It is the militant Islamists, including your friend Ahmadinejad, that refuse to let us or their own people live.
Yes I did see the Ahmadinejad interview on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. I found it chilling. Ahmadinejad is looking more and more like Hitler, only worse, because he is Hitler plus messianic religious fanaticism. He is smart and media savvy, which makes him even more dangerous. He played Wallace and his audience with great skill. He understands us too well, and it is clear to me that he thinks us fools (and I really cannot blame him for thinking that).
You wrote: "I 'saw' very little that I disliked about the Iranian President there."
So I assume you approved of the hatred he expressed for Israel, Jews, the US, and Britain, and his praise for the Iranian proxy, Hezbollah. Did you approve of his hypocrisy too? You know, when he talked about his concern for the people in US prisons, and about how much he supports the victimized and oppressed. I suppose the time constraints of the interview did not permit him to add the clarifications: "except if we are the ones doing the oppressing" or "unless the oppressed are women, gay, or dare to voice the slightest criticism of the Iranian regime or Islam, in which case we will beat, arrest, torture, rape and kill them."
What exactly is it that you like about Ahmadinejad? Is it his devotion to his religious views? I noticed that you spoke of your interest in theology and your belief in "what is still called INTELLIGENT DESIGN." Personally, I would not call it "intelligent design," since I think the theory to which the term refers is really just Creationism with a dose of pseudo-scientific window dressing.
By the way, I did not say you called me a fanatic. I said you launched an ad hominem attack, and I think you know what I was talking about. If not, I suggest you go back and re-read your earlier comment.
sorry to jump in late, I just want to clarify 2 things that were brought up in the comments:
1- This is not just another "online" petition. Although you can sign online too, the signatures don't count towards the 1 million unless they are on paper. The main point is the face-to-face dialogue.
2- The campaign has started in Iran by Iranian women, they are actually very intelligent and have the drive to do something like this. I think many of Iranian women's rights activists are knowledgeable on the subject of women's rights in Iran than the average western men and women (as this should be the case). So let's not undermine their intelligence and efforts by saying this has anything to do with foreign governments or institutions! They are the real thing.
finally, thank you for posting this Lily, I have also posted it on my blog.
Let's not give Ahmadinejad so much credit (in evil credit points) ! He is bad but he is all talk. Although he is getting media time, he is not the dictator and Iran's government does not only depend on him or a handful of people. So in this case, you can't attack Iran and solve the problem.