From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: Seyyed and the Politics of Difference
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:06:48 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh
Keywords: Politics, Difference

In article <1992Nov5.043107.19477@wuecl.wustl.edu> seyyed@wuee1.wustl.edu (Seyyed Mahdavian) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.225218.27839@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>

>>I contend that claims about "the law of God" are thinly veiled exercises
>>of power.  You will recall that, in all historical rhetoric, God always
>>seems to be on the side with the most powerr.  In this case that happens 
>>to be the males who dominate legal and governing institutions.
>
>It's true that the name of God has been abused by a lot of people, but you
>cannot deduce from this, that everybody who claims to apply God's law, is
>like those who abused it. In fact many people established power in the
>name of God, and were just and right. Prophet King David (a) was one of

I have just one comment here.  I think Loren has brought up a good point
in that God always seemed to be with the big batallions.  Now we're
getting into interesting territory: What if the truest and closest to God
are also the weakest and all get killed or silenced?  We will never hear
them.  The only guarantee that God's word (true teachings) get spread is that
if his followers have the power to spread them, and that God gives them more
power than the others so they don't get silenced.  If this is the case, how
come it took the faithful followers of God 8 years to fight Iraq, take 
hundreds of thousands of casualties, and lose, whereas it took the "infidels"
only eight weeks, take less than 300 casualties, and win?  If God is truly 
on the side of the faithful, then He is on the side of the physically weaker.
I would like to extend this argument in saying that what if there are people
even more faithful and closer to what God truly wants us to believe, and are
even in a weaker position?  We will never hear them, although their message 
might have been totally different than what we practice today.  So all I am
saying is might is not always right, and the right do not always survive.

>them. Isn't it true that nowadays a lot of people are abusing the names
>"justice", "human rights", "freedom", ... ? Isn't it true that those
>claims are thinly veiled exercises of exploitation and colonization?
>Just look at your own country! You go to Iraq, kill thousands of innocent
>people in the name of justice, and when it comes to Somalia, you are as
>mute as a dead body!

This I agree with completely.  Every gov't, good or bad, always tries
to hide behind "good" ideals.  Have you ever heard of a country whose
official form of government is "brutal dictatorship"?  No, they all call
themselves something like "democratic peoples republic of such and such".
So the bottom line is, never accept hands down what your gov't says, and
question their authority when in doubt.  If the gov't doesn't allow you to
even just question their authority, then you know right there they are
playing tricks on the people.


may your neemro not be overcooked,

Agha Javad
(b-b-b-baghghAl to the bone)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian