Jul 25th, 2005
Senator Brownback
About one month before Siavash stepped foot in the United States, hundred of demonstrators had gathered in front of the Capitol to show their support for democratic change in Iran, marking the fourth anniversary of student protest in Tehran, which had ended in violence.
As the protesters chanted in unison, a man stepped forward onto the podium and began to speak about freedom and democracy.
About one month before this demonstration, Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, had introduced a bill he called the “Iran Democracy Act” into congress, asking for fifty million dollars to promote democracy in Iran and to fund Iranian opposition groups.
Brownback explained how the Iran Democracy Act aimed to “support Iranians seeking to create a democratic, secular government which respects human rights, abandons state-sponsored terrorism and rejects the possession and use of weapons of mass-destruction.”
It was interesting to note that the National Iranian American Council - a non-partisan group aimed at promoting Iranian-American participation in American civic life, had reported that 80.3% of the users of their Legislative Action Center had sent messages to their lawmakers opposing the act, while only 19.7% were in support of the Act.
Why would Iranians be against a bill that aimed at promoting democracy in Iran?
The most commonly cited reason amongst those opposing the act, was that history had repeatedly shown that US intervention wasn’t always the most suitable medicine for a foreign national ailment.
They pointed to the toppling of the popular nationalistic Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953 as one example of how U.S. intervention in Iranian affairs could have deleterious effects.
Democracy, it was argued, cannot be imposed from the outside.
It’s interesting to note that supporters of the Iran Democracy Act included the advocacy groups like the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
The altruism by these groups is not surprising in light of the fact that Brownback is a noted pro-Israel ideologue.
Earlier in the year, he had even worked with another senator, Rick Santorum, to introduce legislation that would create a federal commission (which some critics referred to as a tribunal) that would investigate anti-Isreali sentiments on American campuses.
If American colleges and universities were found to be permitting professors, students, and student organizations to make statements against Israel, the affiliated institution could have their federal funding cut.
Senator Brownback is more than a politician. He portrays himself as a man on a crusade - to help spread democracy, liberty, and freedom throughout the world.
His idealistic vision is probably largely the result of his deep faith and his affiliation with the religious conservatives in this country.
Two years ago, Brownback converted to Catholicism under the supervision of a man named Father McCloskey, one of the more influential priests of Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative offshoot of the Catholic Church.
Opus Dei was founded by the Spanish priest Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, in 1928 and has been criticized for antiquated practices such as self-flagellation; wearing cilicios, pointed chains which dig into the thigh; mental and emotional manipulation of recruits and disciples; and religious intolerance.
Therefore, it was a bit surprising to hear Brownback talk about intellectual freedom in Iran, considering the founder of his religion once wrote, “You shall not buy books without the advice of an experienced Christian. It is so easy to buy something useless or mischievous. Often people believe they are carrying a book under their arm … but they only carry a load of mud.”
It is interesting to hear Brownback talk about his love for the Iranians, considering the founder of his religion uses the names of battles fought by Christians against Muslims as a synonym for victory.
It is interesting to hear Brownback talk about freedom of choice considering the founder of his religion once write that “The holy coercion (to Opus Dei) is necessary, compelle intrare the Lord tells us.” And, “You must kill yourselves for proselytism.”
It is a pleasant surprise to see a man who is affiliated with such a fanatical religious organization as Opus Dei, lend his heart and soul to a vision of secularism in a country he has never visited.
