Iran Set To Execute Evangelical Pastor
From FoxNews.com:
Iran's Supreme Court says an evangelical pastor charged with apostasy can be executed if he does not recant his faith, according to a copy of the verdict obtained by a religious rights activist group.
Christian Solidarity World says Iranian-born Yousef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 and given the death sentence late last year, could have his sentence suspended on the grounds that he renounce his faith.
Those who know him say he is not likely to do that, for if he were disposed to giving it up, he would have done it long ago.
Alright, before I extrapolate any larger, ideological points from this disturbing story, let me first say that my prayers are with this brave soul. He is suffering for his faith, and in a way that I (and millions of Christians) may never know. Scripture teaches that it is a privilege to suffer for Christ, but it is hard for a sheltered, pampered panny-waist like me to wrap my mind around all that this entails for Believers around the globe (and on a daily basis, no less). For more on the religious angle, you can read Rob Schwarzwalder's blog-post at Family Research Council.org here.
But what the average American citizen must not lose in all of this is the obvious, but easily under-scored, point that different values lead to different societies and cultures. We're all God's children, but like any parent can confirm: not all of your kids make the same decisions, or end up in the same places in life.
We hear often about how "Westernized" the Middle East and Central Asia are becoming. The case for this seems to be entirely based upon the fact that they have cable news networks and rickety semblances of democracies of their own. We tend to think that as a society's technological capabilities increase, so does its understanding and appreciation for things like rule of law, human rights, and civic-mindedness.
We hear the words "Recent elections in Egypt..." and breath a sigh of relief and hope against hope that countries in such a tumultuous part of the world are getting their act together.
Meanwhile, the politically correct-minded folks here in the U.S. continue to perpetuate the asinine idea that A) We cannot have anything but a positive, nostalgic view of developing countries and cultures, because B) No culture is superior to any other. Plus, they would say, we've done our "fair share" of reprehensible things.
Who are we to comment on the murder of Christians, the execution of gays, and the lynching of women who were raped but don't have the necessary "witnesses" to back up her claim? We had slavery (which so many Americans hated that we were willing to fight a Civil War to end). We had Jim Crow laws (which the religious, compassionate strain of American consciousness helped bring an end to a half-century ago).
We elected George W. Bush, for Pete's sake! Where do we get off complaining about other nations' leaders and societies, right?
Well, the truth of the matter is that we most certainly have made mistakes. We're a collection of 300 million fallen individuals, all trying to live our lives, raise our families, and pursue vocations that will put food on the table. We are hoping to find ways to satisfy that "pursuit of happiness" TJ wrote about roughly 235 years ago.
But there can be no doubt that the United States of America has different ideas, ideals, and values than a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia. We are communal creatures and are, to one extent or another, influenced by the environment we find ourselves in. Being taught from birth that man/woman is "endowed by his/her Creator" with rights, dignity, and purpose leads one to approach life, love, and politics from a very different perspective than growing up around ideas like "Jews drink the blood of Muslim children," "The Holocaust was made up," and "Infidels deserve to die."
Pray for Yousef Nadarkhani, but also spend some time reflecting on the points I've raised here. I believe them to be self-evident, and completely devoid of any racist motivations. My beef is with the ideas and values, not the individuals (especially those brave souls who reject the madness of the Sharia-run, totalitarian regimes they live under).
People swim through shark-infested waters to come to America, they immigrate to Western Europe, and are willing to up-root their families to move to Canada.
No one is sneaking into Iran...other than Christians bringing Bibles and the Gospel message.
Can Iran Be Free?
The Heritage Foundation is the standard for conservative think-tanks. Heritage is involved in everything from Foreign Policy to Health Care Reform to Economic Freedom. Today Heritage posted "Ten Steps to a Free Iran", an abbreviated list of ten things the US and Europe can (and should) be doing to help the millions of freedom-loving citizens of the Sharia-dominated nation.
Here are three of the ten:
1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.
2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.
3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime's aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.
Iran Update
President Obama turned his back on the Iranian protesters who tried to rally the world's support against a corrupt regime's "election" this past summer.
That was then, this was from last Wednesday's New York Times:
The contrasts were vivid: Pro-government supporters chanted ''Death to America'' and stomped on U.S. flags Wednesday while not far away, hundreds of opposition protesters denounced Iran's leaders and appealed to America's president to choose sides.
''Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us,'' the anti-government protesters chanted in Farsi, in an amateur video clip widely circulated on the Internet.
And what was President Obama's reponse this time?
Knowing the opposition was planning to march, Mr. Obama issued his own statement the night before that instead chose to reach out to the regime. America, he said, "seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs." He went on to list the Administration's various efforts to appease the regime. So far and on all counts, the mullahs have rebuffed these entreaties.
The President made no mention of democracy or reference to the opposition directly, though in the last paragraph he did allow that "the world continues to bear witness to [Iranian peoples'] powerful calls for justice."
The Wall Street Journal asks Barack Obama the question on all freedom-loving peoples' lips:
Is this what he meant when he talked, at the start of his Presidency, about "restoring U.S. moral leadership"?
Iran’s Ready…Are We?
From the Times of London: Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times of London.
You're move, President Obama. Israel won't wait much longer for gab-sessions with Iran.
The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader.
What Iran Thinks
I realize there is a slew of legitimate things to be concerned about in our own country, what with socialized medicine and angry Harvard professors taking up most of our time and patience, but please don't forget about the dangerous regime in Iran which is intent on developing nuclear capabilities in the not-too-distant future.
Amir Taheri, writing in today's NY Post, offers some sober reminders about the murderous mullahs in Tehran.
Here's what the bad guys think of us over there:
According to the newspaper Kayhan, which reflects the views of the leadership in Tehran, the United States is "in a state of strategic desperation" in the Middle East and has no stomach for a serious confrontation with Iran.
Has Iraqi Freedom Stirred Iranian Dissent?
Writing for Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens (best known for his outspoken atheism) makes the case that perhaps what has been accomplished in Iraq is rousing Iranian dissidents to action. Hitchens, a liberal, has had the intellectual honesty to consistently report the "good" that has come out of Iraq the past 3 years.
An excerpt:
Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media.Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.
There are, no doubt, other determining factors as well. Contrary to the simplistic distinction between the "liberal urban" and the "conservative rural" that is made by so many glib commentators, Iran is a country where very rapid urbanization of a formerly rural population is being undergone, and all good Marxists ought to know that historically this has always been a moment pregnant with revolutionary discontent. In Saddam's Iraq, the possession of a satellite dish was punishable by death; everybody knows that the mullahs in Iran cannot enforce their own ban on informal media and unofficial transmission. And yet, precisely because they are so dense and so fanatical, they doom themselves to keep on trying. Every Iranian I know is now convinced that if this is not the end for the Khamenei system, it is at least the harbinger of the beginning of the end.



