Then and Now – Afghanistan and Iran

Then and now4

via

 

20 comments to Then and Now – Afghanistan and Iran

  • TekDragon

    This is what happens when religious fundamentalism takes over.

  • revrick315

    Wrong. This is what happens when strict Islamic fundamentalism takes over. You can’t group this with all fundamentalism.

    That’s not to imply that there aren’t a lot of crazy fundamentalists in all religions that go far beyond what a reasonable person would consider ‘reasonable,’ but to tar all with the same brush is wrong. That would be the same as someone saying a total lack of religion would lead to unbridled immorality and death since no one would follow the common precept of ‘thou shalt not kill.’

    I agree though that it’s intolerable to see a free society held under strict control due to religious, governmental, or other beliefs.

  • PopCollector

    The 1967 and the 1970 pictures are of Americans. The latter version of both are locals.

    • Andy from Beaverton

      PopTard, so what if the pictures are of Americans? I have friends who were living in Iran in the 70’s and the country was very liberated. The Iranians were nothing like the Arabs of surrounding countries until the second worst president in our history Jimmy Carter let the Shah fall. If you want a photo of what a radical religion with a pedophile as a prophet can do to a family, just look below.

      1971-Osama-bin-Laden-on-a-009.jpg

      1971: Osama bin Laden (second from right) on a visit to Falun, Sweden. That year 23 members of the wealthy Bin Laden family visited Falun while one of the elder brothers conducted business with Volvo. Osama is remembered from the occasion as a quiet and reserved boy who at 16 didn’t really stand out from the crowd

  • g-bull

    I suspect PopCollector is right. Either way though, it prompts discussion.

    revrick315 – I disagree that only “strict Islamic fundamentalism” is the at play here. All religious fundamentalism will have a simiar effect – if enough of the populous supports the dogma, the rest of the people are dragged along. Please keep in mind – while we see the burka and the hijab as symbols of religious opression of women, those who support the religion see them as symbols of faithful followers. Just as a crucifix or yarmulke might appear to us in America … when we see these things, we don’t see someone who is opressed or forced into displaying them – we see someone supporting their beliefs. It’s the same thing for the muslims who follow their written word literally.

    But I wholeheartedly support free choice on whether an individual wants to support the fundamentals or not. If a woman in Iran chooses not to wear the hijab, GOOD FOR HER!!!

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with supporting your beliefs. Actually, a WHOLE LOT of good things have come from people supporting their religious beliefs, whatever they are.

    The problems arise when someone decides to impose religious beliefs upon another.

    I’m in Minnesota. We have a constitutional ammendment on the ballot this year to restrict ‘marriage’ to one man and one woman. This has no place in our Constituion, whatsoever. The Constituion is not for defining a religious agenda. But hear me out – I have no problem whatsoever with leaving that decision to the legislature (and it already been decided, by the way. and marriage already IS defined as one man and one woman) – but to add this to our State Constitution, to say “in Minnesota, this is who we are,” is just wrong. The definition of ‘marriage’ is not what defines Minnesotans, and it should be left to the legislature to decide, because we all know things change as time goes on.

    Anyway … I’ve been rambling, sorry … I hope everybody has a nice Tuesday.

    • Geo

      g-bull:
      Referring to your post above. I follow you all the way till you got to your next to last paragraph. Where [if I'm reading it correctly] you seem to be suggesting that some pointy headed politician or collective body of them “are better equipped to make changes to laws, than the very people who elect them to their positions. Do I have that right?

      Many States [actually all States] have procedures within their Constitution to “make law or amend Law”, “amend their adopted Articles of their Constitution” or provide for “ballot initiatives to change or amend Law”. It’s called a “Democratic” process, not solely left up too elected officials who hold office.

      Constitutions [U.S. or States], Laws and Traditions have always been reflective of us as a society and going back to the beginning were based on European, Judeo and Christian Laws and Society traditions. There has always been a means of redress of Laws by it’s citizens except in socialist or dictatorships. That is not us.

      To date 32 States have adopted a amendment to their Constitution or Law that “marriage” is between one man and one woman. Either by ballot or by legislation. In addition, California has passed ballot initiatives also stating that “marriage” was between one man and one women, 3 times. Where some Judge [including one gay Judge] saw fit to overturn the will of the people. Following your logic,[if I'm reading it right] “the people” of California should’ve waited for the pin heads in the State Legislator to pass that law and that’s the “only” way to change it? Do I have that right? Do you really believe that ANY California Legislative body would EVER adopt that, or better yet one of the recent Governors sign it?

      We live in a “representative democracy”, where the elected officials [in theory] should legislate reflective of the electorate that put them in office, unfortunately that doesn’t always work out. It’s exactly why there are ways for the “people” to redress issues, amend Laws or their Constitutions. It’s the democratic process.

      During the recent Chic-Fil-A controversy Rahm Emanuel stated that Chick-Fil-A didn’t reflect the “values” of Chicagoan’s. Oh really? Illinois just so happens to be one of the 32 States that passed a amendment to their Constitution stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. One elected pin head doesn’t speak for the entire population in Chicago or anywhere else. That’s why when they take the oath of office they swear to uphold the Constitution and Laws over them. Not to impose their own agenda.

      Lastly, there is a basis in all U.S. Law that “each State recognizes and abides by each others laws”. A Drivers License issued in one State is recognized by all other States, the same goes for marriage. Not to do so, would cause havoc throughout the Country. We now have 32 States that “only” recognizes a marriage is defined by one man and one woman, as it has been for more than 200 years. What happens to the other 18 States? Are the 32 State now obligated by Law to accept the law of the 18 States? What happens if someone from one of those 18 States relocates and moves into one of the 32 States? Are they now obligated to now accept that marriage, from another Sate simply because they moved into it?

      Perhaps I misunderstood you position, it doesn’t seem to be logical or lawful the way I reading it.

      • g-bull

        No, my point is that the constitution is for the definition of the state, not the regulation.

        Something like the definition of “marriage” within the law should be outlined by the legislative body … who knows what regulations or advantages (or disadvantages) might be applied to married couples in 200 years? Why should we limit these things only to man+woman couples, versus couples of man+man or woman+woman? Who are we now, to decide how people hundreds of years from now should live? That’s why this should be left to the legislature, which is a more temporary way to define law.

        It hasn’t been brought up yet, but in my opinion, this whole marriage ammendment movement nullifies the feminism movement of the last 40 years. Think of it this way: many of us agree that a child brought up in a two-parent home is better off in the long run. But to say that gay marriage is bad, is saying that there’s something inherently different between having a mother and father as parents, versus having two mothers or two fathers. I think two loving parents, regardless of gender, are better than one. Limiting some children to only one parent, due to this definition of marriage, is detrimental to society overall.

        • Geo

          Definition of the State not the regulation? What the hell are you talking about? The Constitution whether it be the U.S. or any State is made by and adopted by man through a democratic process. They just don’t appear. Ever hear of the Constitutional Convention?

          The rest of your logic is pure speculation and conjecture. Do you have studies or proof to support your theory or is it just your opinion? I’m not arguing the merits or demerits of gay marriage per se, I’m taking issue with your flawed interpretation of the democratic political process. Those pin heads that you claim are the sole proprietors of the political process, work for and are elected by us. We hire and fire them. They are no smarter than you or me. They don’t get the privilege of participation in the political process, while we observe on the sidelines. That happens elsewhere, like Cuba.

          You also avoided the example I presented. If someone joined in a gay marriage relocates to another state that does not recognize gay marriage … . . is the new State obligated like it is in all other law to acknowledge that marriage? Or better yet suppose that same couple seeks a divorce in the new state that they moved too, that doesn’t even recognize that marriage, and as you might interject, what if there are children involved?

          If we are to change our traditional definitions of long established law on someones whim, where does that end? Are there ever any limitations to what you are suggesting? Perhaps a civics or government course would be appropriate. The democratic process and procedure is well laid out and as far as I can tell is being followed whenever the ballot or Constitutional amendment process is initiated. However that can not always be said when it comes to a Judicial review of that process.

      • Richard

        Fact check: Our form of federal government is a Federal Republic. The founding fathers were very careful to avoid a democracy.

  • Bella

    Oh boy Jonco, I see a sh!t storm a brewing. Politics and religion.

    So how was your day?

    • Jonco

      It’s funny but when I look at this all I think is that it’s just interesting. I don’t see it as politics and religion. Maybe I’m just too naive. My intention is not to stir anything up at all.

  • Scott

    Searches show that ‘Iran 1970′ seems to actually be students at an Iranian university. Now search for pictures of Kent State 1970.

  • Andrei

    The real then and now (Iran anyway):
    http://i.imgur.com/GAe05.jpg?1

  • revrick315

    I agree with you completely G-Bull.

  • Damien

    Interesting (and scary) to see that noone wonders WHY these countries changed.

  • Fitz

    The caption should be “Pre-American Involvement & Post-American Involvement”.

  • revrick315

    bwahaha!!! my intention is not to stir up anything at all!!! :)

 
ADVERTISEMENTS
 
 
Your ad can go here!