That they [Iranian Mullahs] eventually turned against him [Shah] and replaced him with a theocratic state may have been a "degraded" part of their revolution, but when did their revolution begin -- when they helped the Shah grab state power? DP
---------
In my mind their revolution began to take effect when it could recruit enough discontents into their doctrinal orders and convince them such an absurd authoritarianism was progress? I don't know. I don't know the history, in order to argue it coherently.
But never mind that for now. Consider what Judaism, Christianity and Islam share, besides their mutual antagonisms. They are the historical precedents to modern secular states and were all founded in historical struggles against Empires. Their theologies co-evolved to supplant the reigning political orders of their origins. So that their resuscitation as neo-fundamentalism is tailor made to co-opt and conflate predominately secular nationalisms and some forms of cultural self-determination with their own theocratic orders. In that sense they are all potential rivals and alternatives to some nascent and progressively motivated secular politics. It was in reaction to those potential threats that of course lay the heavy handed anti-clericalism of the French, Russian, and Cuban revolutions.
Religious fundamentalisms have co-existed in almost every progressive movement from Latin America, to the US, to Europe, to the Middle East, their home ground where they have taken on their most virulent form.
What do I mean by co-exist? My half-sister and I both grew up in a shared household with moderate religious trappings. When she confronted the raging campus politics of the UC system in the late 60s early 70s, she struggled briefly with political awareness and then turned into a fundamentalist Christian.
In familial contrast, I am about as anti-clerical or anti-religious as it gets. But that doesn't stop me from seeing a common source or ground of discontent..
Chuck Grimes