Religion in Autocratic and Oligarchic Terms-Dangers of Humanly Ordered Theocracy

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jul 1, 2021 at 13:23

If history demonstrates nothing else to mankind before humanity orders its own destruction, the organic lesson to be learned is that using religious politics is as, if not more so, dangerous to the race than secular politics; for neither operates for the common good, only the vision (tainted and not tainted) of the prideful one(s) seeking office for personal reasons. People leading by 'vision' are most likely to be betrayed and are betrayers of the trust so desperately sought by the many for peaceful existence; it is written that no human government can govern by deceitful human precepts.
The Mullahs in the Iranian Islamic Regime are now political laboratory examples of this, they having taken on the promulgation of a 'replacement theological paradigm' in which historical misinterpretations of the course of human destiny is theirs to decide and condemnation to those who do not 'share the vision.'
That the Mullahs seem not to care is actually part of the mystery of how, in the face of obvious understandings of proper social conduct in normal societal settings, they promote their controversial assessments of oppressing their people in decidedly harmful administrative practices for reasons of obsession of power, using a narratives of religious persuasion handed down through the ages, being modified to suit the contingencies of even the most righteous objections; using a corruption of a 'vision' of further religious prophetical dialogue not unique in its inception, but deceptively coercive in its implementation. In Iranian Islamic (Shi'a) Regime's dreams of empire, al-madhi is in the back of the mind, to be deployed when convenient for the religious argument of power over those sentiments.
Those Mullahs do care; just not about the sentiments or desires of those they desire to have power over.

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".