Iran's seat of power, the Ayatollah, gives his first official speech since last week's historical post election protests. Before you listen to the speech, get caught up on who the key players are and check out BBC's guide on "Who's who in Iran". A response to Ayatollah Khamenei's speech will follow shortly.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: Khomeini vs Khamenei
Iran's political chessboard can be a little confusing. Note that before Khamenei, there was his predecessor Khomeini. Iran's Second Revolution This is arguably Iran's second revolution. The first took place in 1979, and continues to be the source of much controversy.
The epic response from hundreds of thousands of Iranians bears witness to the fact that many Iranians cannot be represented by the theocratic and political leaders currently cemented in place.
This surge of expression highlights the will and determination of the Iranian people and their refusal to lay dormant in this obviously rigged election that hailed Ahmadinejad as victor over popular and well-supported Mousavi. The theocracy originally outlawed protests, but with record number of Iranians hitting the pavement in protest, the establishment quickly rescinded the threat, recognizing it would force a revolution. Instead, the government has targeted journalist and instilled media ban on the coverage of Iranian reaction. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL MOVEMENT OF THE 21st CENTURY... and many key journalist and media groups have failed to treat it with historic and monumental importance. Perhaps their failure is the reason why it's business as usual for most Americans - with only slight pause to acknowledge some ongoing commotion in Iran. A shame. An America quickly losing itself in blanket socialism could have learned the genuine meaning of democracy and voice from an unlikely source...and possibly an unlikely ally.
With Iran’s upcoming June 12 presidential election, a quick trace over Ahmadinejad’s steps shows a failing leader desperate to secure a win. At his May 25 press conference in Tehran, the Iranian leader carefully positions himself against a sky backdrop in a see-through attempt to project himself as visionary. It was at this time that he extended an open invitation to Obama for a public debate at the U.N. should he be re-elected. In this maneuver, (one that will likely be turned down by Obama despite his “unilateral cowboy summitry” pledges), Ahmadinejad attempts to paint his candidacy as being the only one that can truly protect Iran’s nuclear interests and present a bold face against the West – which many in the region continue to hold a pitted resistance to. In a four way race, Ahmadinejad’s possibly sees his biggest threat in reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, the fifth and last prime minister of Iran backed by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami for whom he also served as adviser. Khatami initially entered the race but pulled out, giving support to Mousavi – a move many believe was orchestrated to ensure the race had at least one strong reformist candidate. campaign's lack of access to any media. [ A recent move by Ahmadinejad to block Facebook, an online social networking forum critical to Mousavi’s campaign, has seemingly backfired. Although Ahmadinejad denies banning the site, the blatant act of media censorship and freedom of speech (common in the Islamic Republic) has only catapulted Mousavi to headline news and prompted thousands of young supporters to be more adamant in their support for him. The question is will this support translate to votes? With over fifty percent of Iranians born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, young voters have the potential to make or break this election. Meanwhile, Mousavi still has access to Kalameh Sabz, a newspaper he launched a few weeks prior. Translated as the “Green Word”, the move to combat the regime’s notorious track record of media censorship may not be a major asset to Mousavi due to its late launch date. Regardless of who wins the race, the ultimate seat of power in Iran is with the Ayatollah – and that’s where things need to change. Further readings... Ahmadinejad uses Christ to Attack West
Pope Benedict’s recent trip to Israel is disconcerting to say the least. Traveling to Nazareth, the childhood home of Jesus, the Pope brought with him a message of reconciliation between interfaith groups – namely Muslims and Jews. He urged them to “reject the destructive powers of hatred and prejudice.” While this act may be heralded by those around the world, the fact of the matter is anyone (especially these days) can and does go around urging peace. But were it that simple, we’d have had peace by now.
What I personally see as a popular trend is the rise of many so-called leaders trumpeting a message of peace that not only fails to have any real substance, but is also not followed by clear decisive action. What raises grave concerns here is not the stated agenda behind the Pope’s trip, but the acts and specific choice of words, which raise alarming suspicions and point to incredible hypocrisy.
CREATING ASSOCIATIONS
The words of any leaders, particularly those given at mass public gatherings, are carefully thought out. Words don’t just stumble out of their mouth – they’re crafted. And here is what was shaped on this occasion: "I urge people of goodwill in both communities to repair the damage that has been done, and in fidelity to our common belief in one God, the Father of the human family, to work to build bridges and find the way to a peaceful coexistence," – Benedict.
The use and placement of the bolded text highlights the association created here. As monotheistic faiths agree, God is Father and Creator – and the title of Pope is derivative of “il Papa”, Latin for Father. In the minds of many who already believe in this self-appointed title, these words will reinforce a belief. In the minds of others, it creates a subliminal association that makes his presence more acceptable.
Any student of rhetoric will attest to the obvious connection the Pope creates here, linking himself to the divine. Troubling? Not so much. Troubling considering the immense influence he has over a significant percentage of the population? Yes. Troubling when as a self-appointed religious leader, with a claim to faith in God, he does the very things warned of in the Bible - the book he says he’s about? YES.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
While the rhetorical strategies in Benedict’s speech can be fairly debated, his actions cannot. While you may accidentally or unknowingly say the wrong word, you cannot “accidentally” create a parade “led by a procession of priests and bishops in flowing white robes.”
Nor can you accidentally carry a large gold cross, don yourself in a golden cloak, and surround yourself with an entourage of priests all setting the stage for a grand spectacle of ‘faith’. These shows of faith are exactly that – a show. The truly saddening part is the crowd that showed up, chanting his name, “clapping in unison and waving yellow and white Vatican flags.”
And the grand irony of this is the fact that it all took place in Nazareth. Nazareth, in Galilee, was where “according to tradition, Jesus traveled through Galilee with his disciples preaching and performing miracles in the final years of his life.”
Benedict’s display here is a questionable imitation of Jesus. There are too many coincidences here for it to be a coincidence – the choice of words, the location, the movement… However you choose to look at the picture, there’s one fact and figure that stands out in sharp contrast to this scene.
Anyone who has studied Jesus would know how much this man was against shows of grandeur, against religious titles, against mass followings…against the very idea of a “pope”. And yet, here is Benedict - revered by believers who unfortunately do not see that he is a manifestation of the very thing Jesus warned against.
And when he passes, another in his place, and another thereafter and another and another. Each claiming an exclusive right to something God gives freely to all.
In an overwhelming 22-3 vote, Hawaii’s Senate moved to declare a state-wide “Islam Day”. The bill, previously passed by Hawaii’s House of Representatives, marks the 24th of Sept as day celebrating Islam’s “rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions.” The dissenting minority of two Republicans argued that other faiths did not have a celebration day, and further added that radical elements in Islam celebrated the Twin Tower attacks.
The third vote against passing the bill came from a Democrat who cited the rule of separating church and state. Proponents of the bill remarked that it was a show of American tolerance, especially in light of the 9-11 attacks. In my personal view, yes it’s a show of tolerance but how much more can we stomach as a society in an attempt to “show our tolerance”. Didn’t half of America just get done voting in a president to “show we’re tolerant”? And if “recognizing contributions” is the case, then let’s clutter the calendar with every civilization across history that’s contributed in some way.
The bill is going to backfire in two ways:
1) It’ll give Islamists and fundamentalists another notch on the belt.
2) It’ll create resentment among other groups.
The gesture is an attempt to be equitable, but in reality is considerably as ridiculous as an International Women’s Day, Black History Month, and any other day that really just separates a group from the rest by highlighting it as 'unique' or in ‘need’. In actuality, these ‘celebrations’ show a complete lack of progress by the very people who should be educated enough to know better. On a closing note - seeing as to how he’s been dodging religious affiliations, it would be interesting to gauge Obama’s response to “Islam Day”.
Blog
JERUSALEM DIVIDED
![Tehran, Iran: Hundreds of thousands of Iranians protest election result at iconic Freedom Monument [AP Photo/Ben Curtis]](http://qudosi.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tehran-100k-plus-opp-supporters-near-iconic-freedom-monument.jpg?w=300)
At his May 25 press conference in Tehran, the Iranian leader carefully positions himself against a sky backdrop in a see-through attempt to project himself as visionary. 
[ A recent move by Ahmadinejad to block Facebook, an online social networking forum critical to Mousavi’s campaign, has seemingly backfired. Although Ahmadinejad denies banning the site, the blatant act of media censorship and freedom of speech (common in the Islamic Republic) has only catapulted Mousavi to headline news and prompted thousands of young supporters to be more adamant in their support for him. 