Iran set to execute Christian pastor as early as tomorrow
The goal isn’t to kill him but to terrify him into asserting Islam’s supremacy by recanting his beliefs. No dice.
Before his last hearing Wednesday, Nadarkhani had been given three previous changes to repent, and all three times he has refused. After his final refusal Wednesday, No verdict has been announced, but many expect that he could be put to death as soon as Friday…
There were rumors on Wednesday night that Nadarkhani’s execution sentence was to be waived after the final trial, but contradicting reports indicate that the news was incorrect.
“We’ve had some reports that there has been a verbal announcement from the court in Iran that the sentence is annulled but we urge caution,” said Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a religious group campaigning for Nadarkhani’s release…
Even if the sentence were commuted, Nadarkhani could still face life in prison. And even if he were released, there would still be danger.
The White House condemned the verdict this afternoon, as did Britain and the EU. Over at NRO, Marco Rubio posted a statement noting that Nadarkhani’s wife and lawyer have also been intimidated in an effort to get him to recant. Nothing yet from the State Department today, but they condemned Nadarkhani’s persecution back in July. An intriguing detail in all this: No one’s been executed in Iran for apostasy since 1990. Or rather, no one’s beenofficially executed on that ground since 1990. As we know from Iran’s treatment of gays and political prisoners, when they want to rid themselves of “undesirables” but don’t want to attract too much attention doing it, they’re perfectly capable of trumping up charges involving rape or some other grievous offense to cover their tracks. Why didn’t they do that with Nadarkhani? The BBC speculates in the course of delivering some hopeful news:
The lawyer for an Iranian Christian cleric sentenced to death for apostasy says he is optimistic that his client will be acquitted.
The lawyer, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, said there was a 95% chance Yusuf Naderkhani would be freed…
Former Anglican Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said he could not advise Naderkhani to recant…
Mr Nazir-Ali, who is working for the charity Release, said there was concern in Iran about the growth of house churches, and it “may be that someone is seeking to make an example”.
Interesting theory, although I’m more intrigued by the historical background of the case. Turns out Nadarkhani was arrested in October 2009, just a few months after Iran was rocked by the (failed) Green Revolution. The Iranian Supreme Court upheld the verdict in July of this year, in the midst of the Arab Spring. Could be that the regime is so paranoid about the upheaval inside and outside the country that they’re now determined to crack down on “subversive” behavior of all stripes. Remember, not only did these lunatics banwater fights a few months ago, they did so on grounds that the water fights are … a foreign plot. Hanging an avowed Christian because he’s a Christian amid global condemnation is another way to warn dissidents of every flavor not to cross them. Which is to say, Nadarkhani may be a martyr here not just for his faith but for all of Iran’s discontents.
I’m cautiously (and maybe foolishly) optimistic that they’ll end up granting him clemency, not because they’re swell guys but because the regime likes to show its, ahem, magnanimity occasionally by forgiving the infidels for their transgressions. They just released those hikers, of course, and they made a huge spectacle a few years ago of releasing the British sailors they captured in the Persian Gulf. Once the international microscope becomes large enough, their calculus seems to change from showing Iranians how ruthless they are to showing the world how generous and kindhearted Islamist rule can be. Hopefully we’ll get a replay of that here. Someone at the State Department prepare an asylum application, stat.Please pray for the safety of Mr. Nadarkhani, a Christian of remarkable courage and faith who is ready to die rather than to renounce the Lord. Daniel 3:18 comes to mind.
Notice the silence of the lefty fan club of executed murderer Troy Davis. No protests in front of Iranian embassies for innocent Christians facing execution for their faith.
Notice the near silence in the mainstream media. There's incessant hyperbole about 'Islamophobia' in the U.S. and hysterical excoriation of the Catholic Church, but barely a peep about the murder of Christians-- judicial and extra-judicial-- in the Muslim world.
Notice also that the mullahs don't kill atheists. Atheists present no peril, but even a single faithful Christian is an existential threat to the caliphate.
Muslims know the difference between allies and enemies in the Dar-al-Harab.
Of course Muslims don't kill atheists, because Islam and atheism are the same thing.
ReplyDelete@anon:
ReplyDelete[Of course Muslims don't kill atheists, because Islam and atheism are the same thing.]
No. Islamists aren't a violent as atheists.
Mike, you are so clueless, it's adorable.
ReplyDeleteNotice the silence of the lefty fan club of executed murderer Troy Davis. No protests in front of Iranian embassies for innocent Christians facing execution for their faith.
There are no Iranian embassies or consulates in the United States.
Notice the near silence in the mainstream media. There's incessant hyperbole about 'Islamophobia' in the U.S. and hysterical excoriation of the Catholic Church, but barely a peep about the murder of Christians-- judicial and extra-judicial-- in the Muslim world.
Right. It's not like this news was covered in Washington Post, PBS, CNN.
Notice also that the mullahs don't kill atheists. Atheists present no peril, but even a single faithful Christian is an existential threat to the caliphate.
That would be great news to this lady. Tell her it's safe to return.
"Of course Muslims don't kill atheists"
ReplyDelete'Mullahs' was the term used by Dr Egnor, not Muslims. He is describing the religious authorities in Iran who fear Christianity like the plague, while ignoring atheism (currently) as it is not seen as a threat. Apostasy (atheism included) is punishable by death under Islamic law.
I tend to a agree (in reverse).
I see Atheism as a perennial trend in overfed soft empires and nations. The real long term threat to our way of life is the replacement ideology that fills the secular vacuum created by this positivist trend: Islam.
Atheism's potency is limited to that of facilitator. Islam is a MOTIVATOR.
I hope that makes some sense to the non-monist readers... tiny tablet day here >.<
No lefties are protesting. Well, except for these lefties.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand your precious Vatican hasn't even uttered a peep in protest.
As usual, facts are not your strong suit Egnor.
The problem with Islam on Youtube
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for this comment, but the truth must be told!
ReplyDeleteBeheading, Islam style!
crus:
ReplyDelete[I see Atheism as a perennial trend in overfed soft empires and nations. The real long term threat to our way of life is the replacement ideology that fills the secular vacuum created by this positivist trend: Islam.
Atheism's potency is limited to that of facilitator. Islam is a MOTIVATOR.]
Well said. I agree.
Michael.
ReplyDelete"[I see Atheism as a perennial trend in overfed soft empires and nations. The real long term threat to our way of life is the replacement ideology that fills the secular vacuum created by this positivist trend: Islam.
Atheism's potency is limited to that of facilitator. Islam is a MOTIVATOR.]
Well said. I agree".
Care to expand on what you actually agree with?
CrusadeRex,
"I hope that makes some sense to the non-monist readers... tiny tablet day here"
I'm not certain what a non-monist is, but it certainly doesnt make any sense to me. Care to expand?
@Mike, Thanks :) Glad it was understandable. Even happier someone sees it my way. I know it's not all that 'sexy', but it is a first hand observation. I have seen this idea in action.
ReplyDelete@Pépé I have long been an advocate of showing the beheading videos on TV - late night, with warnings etc. People NEED to know what / who their enemies are. It is a tough choice for me, as they are so utterly disturbing. Also having seen more than one site littered with the after effects of their butchery... Still they need to be seen. Most civilians have NO idea how that type of thing can just 'blend in' and become the norm.
@Bach
ReplyDeleteSure. Gladly for you.
A monist is what is referenced to these days as "atheist" or "naturalist" by the ever simplistic popular press and media.
Not that real Atheists (plain and simple) don't exist, or that monists are NOT atheists; they are. But Atheism is a single and central aspect of Monism.
Much as Theism is a single and central aspect of the large monotheistic faiths.
Important, but not ALL of it.
Simply put, a Monist is a person who feels the entire universe can be explained through a single equation, theory, or line of thought. Often, the Monist will concede, that predicted wisdom that has not yet been discovered. They are HARD materialists and have been flogging their (un)philosophy since the days of the ancients. While the argument changes the message remains the same: We have 'the way'. Today the most popular Monism by far is Scientism (or positivism, if you like).
Modern Monists? Ernst Haekel or Richard Dawkins. Haekel actually founded a league of Monists in Germany. An Honest Monist. (poet and he didn't even know it :P)
I am still not sure you are a monist proper, but you do defend a lot of their ideas (positivism, materialism, determinism etc). It may be you're a an advocate for that type of devil...or that you are. That is something you will determine for yourself.
Regardless, I am pretty sure I can explain my point to you.
Maybe even Oleg. (fingers crossed)
@Bach CNTD
ReplyDeleteHere it is reworded:
Atheism is a single aspect of a larger belief system(s). Atheist based belief systems / ideologies (ie Marxism, SP) facilitate a change in order.
They exist as a transitory state from revolution and rejection of the old system until a better one can be found.
When I say better, I do not mean as in necessarily 'good'. I mean fulfilling and driven by purpose beyond 5 - 10 year plans. We see this time an again.
These regimes do not seem to successfully fill the existentialist needs of the people. Great Leader does not cut it as God. He dedicates and can be killed (often is) by his adversaries. A hero today is a traitor tomorrow etc.
So Atheist ideologies are usually a transient phenomenon. To be fair, some of them are actually DESIGNED that way - to be a bridge.
That accepted, there are MUCH more potent ideas out there that fill the vacuum created by these movements. They fill the economic needs, the political needs, and especially the 'spiritual' needs. Islam is the PRIME example of that in our century and the last (also the 6th-18th).
Metaphor...analogy...
To be pathological about it (LOL), we could suggest that Atheist ideologies are often introduced as a kind of social antibiotic against corruption (some of it portrayed as religiously driven) and that these drugs compromise the natural existential/spiritual immune system. The sniffles set in, and because the anti-biotic is active, they are assumed a 'side effect'. Nothing important. A 'silly' thing.
But it is not 'silly'. It is a full blown infection that leads to dysentery and death. DEADLY serious. That interim civilization is then replaced with a new, tougher, less complicated, and purpose driven society. For purposed of our discussion: Islam.
The new Islamic state that exists in it's place now has OBJECTIVE authority (claimed) and God as absolute. New straight forward and harsh laws are promoted. People feel 'important' again.
There is only one preventative: Culture. That includes a vibrant and STRONG religious tradition(s).
Atheism is paved slab with a crack running right through it. Islam is the weed that grows through it and turns it to gravel.
How does Christianity compare?
(have to give you SOME ammo)
A wild-flower patch by contrast.
And before you accuse me of suggesting our system(s) are perfect: Any flowerbed has weeds and bugs. Some really NASTY bugs too.
ALSO, Atheism is not the SINGLE factor, or the ONLY facilitator. I would also suggest TRUE, old school, non proselytizing atheism is of little or no concern to society as a whole. In fact, while it may be detrimental to those in it's shadow - it serves as a potent contrast for philosophical purposes.
It is can be used as an engine of introspection for the lager community. Much as a man may brush down his unruly hair from looking at it in his shadow, but would not ask his shadow to do his taxes or cut the lawn.
That make any sense?
I am not asking if you agree, Bach...simply if you understand my position?
@all sorry typos
ReplyDeleteTEENY TINY Screen again >.<
Simply put, a Monist is a person who feels the entire universe can be explained through a single equation, theory, or line of thought.
ReplyDeleteUmm, no. Your grasp of philosophy is fairly weak here. No wonder you buy into so many ludicrous ideas.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteIf you want a proper academic definition of Monism and it's advocates - LOOK IT UP! You obviously have an internet connection, and there large depositories of knowledge known as libraries you can generally use for free.
We are discussing Monism in it's modern form. This is how the definition applies. Is there any non-pluralist or monistic animists left about? I suppose there may be sects of Deist monks who approach a form of immaterial monism.
I haven't run into any, personally.
But, I have run into quite a few people convinced of the opposite: That there is ONLY matter and material explanations. They are Monists too!
Monistic Materialist.
It is what it is.
You have some other definition? I mean IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Even your own ideas would be welcome.
Sneering is not.
I can look up Meriam-Webster's or Oxford online myself.
Philosophy is about exchanging and discussing ideas. It is about truth, not specific values or chemical equations. Ideas are applied, not mixed into solution.
My grasp is weak? Maybe pre coffee...but not weak.
I am about to remedy the coffee.
@CrusadeRex: Clearly you are unable to click on embedded links. This lets me know that your grasp on reality is even weaker than I had suspected.
ReplyDeleteTry this: Monism. It's not what you think it is.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteForgive me, is that your website? You are wikipedia? Is that in your own words?
No. No. No.
Have you applied the philosophical principle to modern practice in YOUR explanation of monism? Have you noted any monistic ideologies? Have you come even close to challenging my interp of modern monism?
No. No. No.
Am I remotely interested in what Wiki says on the subject?
You guessed it: NO!
But for fun here is the ad reducto wiki def:
"Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry. Accordingly, some philosophers may hold that the universe is one rather than dualistic or pluralistic.
Then we get the author's rather secular interp of what monism could look like:
"Monisms may be theologically syncretic by proposing that there is one God who has many manifestations in the diverse religious traditions."
The first part is textbook. No problems there.
The example is rather poor, at least in my understanding of historical forms of Monism.
He ALMOST gets it.
A person who holds there is a God and supernatural is not adherent to Monism, even if they believe ALL the Gods being worshipped are the same being.
They default into dualism.
Simply put: They believe in the material AND the immaterial. Nature AND super-nature.
A better example of theological monism would be of certain tribes who believe life is a dream of a God(s) and we are all merely shades in that dream. OR others who believe reality is illusory, and all is immaterial. IE Reality is only ONE being or ONE thought. ONLY God really exists etc.
That is quite rare. Philosophy, Theology, and science have made material reality far too REAL to deny.
Materialism and the denial off all that is not material is not so rare.
THIS monism is the one of which I speak.
Really, Anon - are you unaware that philosophical principles and concepts have DIFFERENT applications and interps?
I'll note you have not challenged my examples or the personalities.
Did Haeckel misunderstand the definition too?
At any rate Anon, the explanation was not for you.
It was for someone who actually communicates with me. Not some twat that calls people liars and tries to correct or redefine each term he comes across while avoiding the central push of the comment.
Atheism only facilitates, Islam MOTIVATES
One is as aspect, the other is complete Ideology.
One an idea, the other a way of life.
Maybe you have a link for that too?
Or maybe someone else has an OPINION of their own?
We'll see.
"@CrusadeRex: Clearly you are unable to click on embedded links. This lets me know that your grasp on reality is even weaker than I had suspected."
ReplyDeleteActually all it tells you is that my screen is small and my browser is lousy. Such LEAPS! Go take another one ....into a lake ;)
Post coffee and post Anon sneer redesign:
ReplyDelete"Simply put, the most common modern incarnation of the Monist is a person or group who feels existence can be explained by a single means of inquiry."
See. I am at least PARTLY material.
As my minds incredibly dubious function is enhanced with a tasty stimulant treat.
Don't ask me for a post Big Mac redesign XD