The Two Sides of Ahmedinejad

Prior to Chavez's speech the Iranian president gave a speech that was along the same lines as Chavez. I want to discuss the two sides of this speech because while it was on the money one one topic, it devolved into religious bigotry (opinion) at the end. Let start with the good:

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third
generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the
development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and
democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against
other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with
the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers
producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before
the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with
the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive
arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these
instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and
tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and
justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither
away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most
global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented
with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others...

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under
the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was
occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants;
it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger
population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by
the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others
with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of
the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great
tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary
refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can
any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United
Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?


Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being
bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and
alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support
or protection. Why?
At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free
choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving
the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of
Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international
community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally
besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?


For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and
bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of
the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the
aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council
of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for
a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel
scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were
persistently repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the
hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this
Council fulfill its responsibilities?


For the complete transcript you should go here:
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/iran-e.pdf

As expected the Israeli supporters and apologists have already condemed both this and Chavez's speech though not a single one has dealt with the actual substance of the speeches in question. And now the unfortunate part. While I believe every person has a right to their own beliefs and religions the following is, in my opinion no better than the talk of evangelical Christians or Crusaders:

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its
Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one
another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.


Firstly, as I have said to anyone engaging in this conversation, To proclaim God a "He" necessarily limits God. Therefore God cannot be a He and should not be referred to in the masculine. Certain people have offered excuses such as: There is no "it" in Hebrew which is why in Judaism God, Yahweh, Elohim, etc. is referred to in the masculine. To this I have responded that therefore when discussing one's religion in languages that do have a gender neutral term that term should be used. It is not accidental at all that in the absence of a gender neutral term, the male signifier is used. The other problem with this, from a purely world body point of view is that there are persons in that body who do not believe in God at all. They do not ascribe to the above statement, thus it is insulting to them to make such a proclamation. Indeed this is just as supposedly insulting as the Pope's statements were seen. Of course it is not in the nature of the persons following those religions to complain about such statements.

Next:
He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue
and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace
be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ
(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called
humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion.


How so ethnocentric of him. How many other cultures are present? It's pretty arrogant, in my opinion to name off prophets of one's own religion and then act like they apply to everyone else. Of course that is the nature of expansionist religions. The next issue of that of the charge that God calls us to Monotheism. Really? Monothesism is inherently more divine than polytheism (however conceived)? Clearly the monotheistic religions of the world have had quite a difficult time teaching Justice, Brotherhood, love and compassion as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all produced mass murderers, enslavers, rapists, etc.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have
ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice,
the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers
and among those who strive for his return and his cause.


Oh yes, for those who are not aware, there is a savior expected by certain Muslims, apparently another "He". Seeing as all the other male prophets have failed to get it right, perhaps they ought to start looking for a "she".

In any case, the ending of Ahmedinejad's was wholly unnecessary. I object to the co-mingling of religion and politics when it is done by Christians and I must be consistent and object to it's use here. It is simply not necessary to make such comments, the strength of the preceding statements were good enough to warrant serious consideration for those who had not already made up their minds not to listen.