We've been round and round on this before ... --- yep ... he makes a stubborn mule seem cooperative.
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:32:20 AM UTC-6, brine wrote: > > We've been round and round on this before ... I have always said all > unions should be civil and if your religion blesses it, then fine, but that > should not be recognized by the government. There are plenty of Christians > that accept same sex marriage. > > You need to get over the word marriage, the genie is out of the bottle and > won't go back in on that one!!! > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Then call it what it is! A "Civil Union" and everyone could live happily > ever after! But no.....The Militant Gay Agenda demanded that the term > "Marriage" be redefined! > > Therein lies the problem Brine! > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Here is where we will forever disagree, it is NOT additional, it is > equal!!! > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > There's no persecution of Gays Plain Ol'. Right now, you have "Additional > Rights" and this is fundamentally wrong. Because of your sexuality, you > have now claimed that you're entitled to: (1) Redefine the term "Marriage"; > and (2) Based on who you choose to crawl in the sack with, "marry" a > person outside of the confines of what a marriage is. > > This is wrong, and it will be addressed soon. > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:40 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, > sounds like a very decent human being to me. > --- > he sounds like a fucking You Norker barking like a dog to me ... and so > does Trump. > Do you really want either of these men representing America? > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-6, pluto of brougham wrote: > > the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI > that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or > Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall > ever > be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the > United States.” > > Full marks to Plaino for that interesting essay, surely the above should > disqualify that woman who refused gay marriage licences from holding > a govt. post, as well as the judges on the high court bench to put aside > their religious beliefs in considering different cases, however, I > recognise that very few of us can be so totally dispassionate, unless we're > Vulcans of course. > > I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, > sounds like a very decent human being to me. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> > Google > Groups > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > Topic digest > View all topics > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> > > > - [grendelreport] Colonials > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_0> > > - 5 Updates > - [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. > Elections? > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_1> > > - 6 Updates > - [grendelreport] Who Is Bernie Sanders? > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_2> > > - 4 Updates > - [grendelreport] NY SHOOTOUT: Devout Muslim AMBUSHES, FIRES at 8 NYPD > Cops, Two OFFICERS Injured > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_3> > > - 2 Updates > - [grendelreport] Cops are asking Ancestry.com and 23andMe for their > customers' DNA > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_4> > > - 2 Updates > - [New post] If you’ve never seen Islamic ‘halal’ slaughter, force > yourself to watch this, then share it with those who haven’t > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_5> > > - 5 Updates > - [grendelreport] Border Walls > > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_6> > > - 1 Update > > [grendelreport] Colonials > <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/bf451f2b69b8bc43?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:49AM -0800 > > but we do remember when they persecuted everyone with different religious > beliefs (or no beliefs at all). > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:21PM -0500 > > I will probably regret asking this, but who is it that you are alleging > are, "They", and when did this allegedly happen? > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:30AM -0800 > > America's True History of Religious ToleranceThe idea that the United > States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and > utterly at odds with the historical record. > > > In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came > to > America aboard the *Mayflower* in search of religious freedom in 1620. The > Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious > dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor > John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the > same, > coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which > everyone was free to practice his or her own faith. > > The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real > story > of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing > and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts > either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent > conversation > about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this > comforting tableau. > > > From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has > often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the > foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” > natives > already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of > early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between > various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and > Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion > that America is a “Christian nation.” > > First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between > Europeans > in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot > (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern > Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the *Mayflower* > set > sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom. > > The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating > base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. > The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish King > Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] > because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these > Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet > washed > up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river > the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first > encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath. > > The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in > the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious > dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the > Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing > religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no > dissent, religious or political. > > > The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams > and > Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and > policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were > anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. > Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently > returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs. > > Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward > Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and often > reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in > statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and > voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood > in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French > Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their > religion. > > When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court > French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he > cautioned > Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a > true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with > compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold > betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with > Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.) > > In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws > regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold > public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing > papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics > from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics > had > full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming > belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South > Carolina, had official, state-supported churches. > > In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that > guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of > no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously > wrote, > “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or > no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s > plan > did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) > Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers of > the Christian religion.” > > Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully > argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious > Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid > out > reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. > Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental > piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the > secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history > as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby > has written in *Freethinkers*, her excellent history of American > secularism. > > Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of > every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to > exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an > inalienable right.” > > Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should > understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a > threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same authority > which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may > establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in > exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of > Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia. > > As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the > face > of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he > contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it is > known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the > support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.” > > Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, > Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that > generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed > of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.” > > After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition > outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took up > Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the > Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from > Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three > accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing > the > Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his > presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson > proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its > protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the > Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” > > Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went > to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in > Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI > that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or > Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall > ever > be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the > United States.” > > This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention > God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that > its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would > infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve > that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may > have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they > also > fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of > the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to > America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that > system and of sectarian conflict. > > It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably > Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a secular > republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike > liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the > Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to > persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its > protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” > > He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro > Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every > August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that > applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who > dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other > inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and > figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” > > As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, > but > on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their > seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious > political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction > on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in > establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be > required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.” > > Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And > I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one > has > done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, > the less they are mixed together.” > > While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, > American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s > Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held > and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that > Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. > Anti-Catholic > venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible > readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the > Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic > mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent > school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic > sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the > Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches > were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed. > > At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and > soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a > mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle > between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a > series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor > Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three > days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including > children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered > Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, > Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime. > > Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt > compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to > America, > not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, > Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions > still > directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of > course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as > socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming > in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights. > > America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum > to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But > recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social > DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, > perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which > Madison > so grandiloquently wrote. > > *Kenneth C. Davis* is the author of *Don’t Know Much About History* and *A > Nation Rising*, among other books. > > > > Read more: > > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#70lZu2DqhQhfYm66.99 > Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv > Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:42PM -0500 > > So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I was > thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon > Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a part > and parcel of this society. > > You should probably read your little abridged historical story, it would be > a good thing. > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:57AM -0800 > > So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I was > thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon > Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a > part > and parcel of this society. > --- > history says otherwise ... can't you read, lawyerboy? > Jefferson and Madison put religious myth believing asshole like you in > their place. > take your religious persecution to israel or iran where it will be > appreciated. > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:42:44 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > Back to top > <#CADyYBpeTONPnN8miWvYPfrhj_s97E0SkQgR28yqeYhy+rkChuQ@mail.gmail.com_-928372916_1412666292_985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_digest_top> > > [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. Elections? > <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/42cd656023cd9bf2?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 12:21PM -0500 > > Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's > involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United States > involvement. > > Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial post, > but it's "*Typical*": > > > > > https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-reagan/essays/iran-and-united-states-cold-war > > Both of these circumstances—Iran’s location between the USSR and the > Persian Gulf, and the presence of major oil reserves—guaranteed the > country’s importance during the Cold War. In addition, a third factor came > into play: the emergence, even before the end of World War II, of the > global military and ideological competition between the United States and > the Soviet Union. Fear of losing influence in a vital part of the world to > Soviet-led Communism motivated much of American foreign policy for the next > several decades. American sentiment about competition and democracy was > spelled out, sometimes in almost Biblical terms, in conceptual documents > like NSC-68 and in numerous policy papers over the years. > > In two key incidents in Iran from the post-war period these precepts were > plainly evident, and produced consequences for the United States that were > in some ways utterly unanticipated. At other moments later in the Cold War, > described further below, Washington’s fixation on the Soviet threat left it > unprepared to deal with crises of local origin that were equally > significant for America’s standing in the region. > > The first of these earlier episodes unfolded at the end of the Second World > War when the USSR threatened to abrogate its agreement with Britain and > Iran to remove its large troop presence from Iran’s northern province of > Azerbaijan within six months of the cessation of hostilities. Anxious to > gain an oil concession that would balance Britain’s privileged access in > the south of the country, as well as to create a buffer zone in a > vulnerable border region, Joseph Stalin planned to solidify Soviet > influence in the southern Caucasus region—perhaps even to annex part of > Azerbaijan province, according to Soviet archival records—but met > surprising resistance from President Harry Truman, who gave a range of > support to the young Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Stalin ultimately > decided to withdraw from the country in late 1946. The actions of the > United States were seen as a sign of genuine respect for the rights of > sovereign states—highly unusual for a major power—and made a powerful > impression on the Iranian people. To this day, the Azerbaijan crisis > accounts for some of the positive views many still have of the United > States. > > Less than a decade later, however, a second major incident dramatically > changed many Iranians’ opinion of the United States. In 1951, Iran’s > recently elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, nationalized the > country’s petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated > Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The move pitted the two governments > against each other in a bitter political fight, leaving the United States > once again to play the intermediary. But while the Truman administration > had tried to work with both sides, President Dwight Eisenhower and his > advisers quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather > than the solution to the crisis. Based strictly on Cold War calculations, > Eisenhower authorized a preemptive covert operation to oust Mosaddeq before > Moscow might have an opportunity to do so. The coup in August 1953 was > carried out at US and British instigation but relied on a variety of > Iranian groups and individuals for its eventual success. > > The overthrow achieved the immediate objective of restoring to the throne > the Shah, who had fled the country during the turmoil, and replacing > Mosaddeq with a more amenable figure. For the next twenty-five years, > Mohammad Reza Shah remained in power and made significant contributions to > the interests of his superpower patron. But even though the coup had had > the support of significant segments of Iranian society at the time, it came > to be seen by many Iranians as a sea change in American conduct—from > munificent protector of smaller countries to archetypal great power > pursuing its own interests regardless of the wishes of local populations. > This view of the United States gained currency inside Iran over the course > of the Shah’s reign as he proceeded to exercise more and more arbitrary and > dictatorial power at the expense of his subjects with little visible effort > at restraint from Washington. In fact, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and > Johnson did press the Shah repeatedly to enact reforms, but that strategy > effectively ended with the assertion of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. > Reflecting the heavy strain on American military resources caused by the > Vietnam War, the new doctrine relied on regional powers to act as the first > line of defense against potential Soviet expansionism. For the next several > years, the Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry > he had long coveted, but also obtained tacit White House permission to > forgo any serious effort at reform. > > By the 1970s, conditions inside Iran that were purely local in origin—with > no connection to the Cold War—had begun to emerge that the United States > was ill-equipped to address. Internal resentment against the Shah’s > political and economic policies was building to a peak (and extending to > his US sponsors), but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of > American decision-makers. Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a fierce public critic > of Iran’s reliance on American backing who had been exiled for years for > his views, Iran’s growing anti-Shah sentiments burst into open revolution > in 1978–1979. After Khomeini’s triumphant return to Iran in early 1979 it > was only a matter of months before the revolution gelled in the form of a > theocratic state, not surprisingly characterized by significant > anti-American overtones. > > In the context of the Cold War, the revolution appeared to many Americans > to signify the “loss” of Iran to Soviet influence, a loss that was > magnified by the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In fact, > Moscow was never able to gain a foothold in Iran because of the Islamic > Republic’s deep suspicion of Russia’s history of aggressive behavior and > the religious leadership’s antipathy for official Soviet atheism. This did > not necessarily bode well for Washington, however. Instead, it was a sign > of the rise of another factor in international politics that would have > implications beyond the Cold War: Moslem fundamentalism, which not only > incorporated the concept of national sovereignty (captured in the phrase > “neither East nor West”) but was animated at its core by the ambition of > creating a theocratic state and spreading Islam across the region. > > Hand in hand with the revolution came another event with momentous > implications for US-Iran relations: the storming of the US embassy in > Tehran and the seizure of American hostages in November 1979. Iranian > accounts indicate that the country’s leadership was initially unaware of > the student-led plan to assault the embassy (which the students claimed was > a response to years of perceived US > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
