Peaceful Change Comes From a Peaceful Heart - Imposition of Change By Force Never Brings Peace

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jun 24, 2009 at 19:42

Is there not a lesson to be learned in wanting freedom from a government intent on oppressing its people because it they are no longer willing to live under its rule and desire change? Strangely, there is a parallel between Iran and America, for a people wanting liberty to live different than as the law currently permits seek redress to get the law changed. The difference, however, between Iran and America, is the means, and the willingness of the government to hear and comply with the desires of the governed.

In America, there is the electorate, and when that does not meet the desires of some, the judiciary. The process, the outcome of which may not meet everyone's approval, is usually peaceful. A law is changed, and when adjudicated, is the rule. When there is a change of the representation by the voter, there is much that is debated, but otherwise is typically a peaceful exercise.

In Iran, under the faux democratic process the world just witnessed, a similar pitch for change was attempted. But the desire of the people evidently was not honored, and the adjudication failed for the lack of justice. Whatever presentation of freedom an Iranian citizen might have had is jeopardized by the control imposed by the theocratic oversight not willing to allow such expressions against the rule of Islam. One may wonder why that is, but the answer is simple. Iranians, just like every other soul in this world, are human, complete with human frailties. Even the mullahs, who impose such restrictions for the sake of their ideology, are subject.

Now if there was anything to wonder about how the Iranian Islamic regime perceives its place in the world as it represses it own, it is that they have a desire that the rest of the world conform to Islam as well, and to impose sharia on a global basis. But the wondering continues to the extent that if they cannot get it right with their own people, how can they expect to export that kind of totalitarian government without the same results. Has no one learned from the Soviet experience?

Turkey did change in a peaceful way from its Ottoman regime to its secular, and yet that apparently is not considered a good thing by contemporary thinking in the current government. So how will that be changed, in peace or violence?

Now before we get into the Islamic exposition that asserts life would be different under sharia law, we already know this, and we already know the results. The world has seen the beneficence of living under those conditions, historically and contemporarily, and they are less than compelling. It continues to expose the human condition, souls yearning for liberty, but failing to live within the responsibilities of a social conscience necessary for equal freedoms for all. Quite noticeably, not all can live under such constraints, thus the need for the rule of law with a moral basis that exceeds the human frame of reference and at the same time, an application of righteousness applied in fairness.

Now some will argue that such a thing can be obtained in the Western frame of reference, that under the premise of western societal constraint, a life in freedom can be had. But here again, the frailty of the human condition colors such an assertion since lawbreaking is not limited to any one sector of the world's population. It traces itself to the very beginning of mankind and the fallen nature of mortal humanity. Except by an understanding that can only be found in the exposition of the truth, as it is contained in the Hebrew Holy Bible, there will be no relief from mankind's affliction of self- destruction.

Only in the salvation message as promulgated by faith in Jesus Christ does the condition of mankind have a way to be understood, and to further know why there cannot be the change in the internal processes of governing the Iranian people, or any other society, for that matter without that knowledge of Jesus Christ. That would be the only message America, relying on her Christian heritage, could project to Iran as well, to treat its citizens with respect and dignity, allowing for a moderated difference in opinions that does not need violence for enforcement of one voice over another. Sadly, it is America's latent desire to alienate itself from its Christian heritage that causes an inability to express such truth to the Iranian people in their time of need, and helpless political rhetoric is substituted instead.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".