Every time we watch the news or flip through a newspaper we see numerous reports on the religious/political war in the Middle East. But what is so special about that specific geographic region that causes so much turmoil? In my research I will be attempting to analyze the religious activities against Farsi-speaking Christians in a specific Middle Eastern Country: Iran. This analysis will be done through a Melodramatic perspective where the use of emotional manipulation is of great importance in forming the view of the public.
So why am I writing just about the Farsi-speaking Christians as opposed to other Christians and why did I choose a specific country like Iran? Well, I grew up in the country of Iran as a Farsi-speaking Christian and have experienced many of the issues reported by social media first hand, so I thought, it would help to actually have a both insider and outsider view on the religious war in Iran.
Emotions play a great role in forming the view of the general public on a certain subject. This is also the case when talking about the war against Farsi-speaking Christianity in Iran. As Goodwin et al. write, “Emotions, we have argued, are collective as well as individual, and they permeate large-scale units of social organization, including workplaces, neighborhood and community networks, political parties, movements, and states, as well as the interactions of these units with one another” (Passionate Politics, 16).
Now it is important to see these emotions in two different contexts and see how they play a role in forming the mindsets of both the persecutor and the persecuted. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the government of Iran has been promoting the idea of having a unified body of Farsi-speaking population which in other words means Farsi-speaking Shi’ais. Therefore, anyone having deviating thoughts from that of the unified body does not belong to that country. At this point, many of the Iranian citizens support this belief which is parallel to what Goodwin et al. believe that “A movement which has widespread social impact, which arouses the moral concern of a majority of the surrounding society, to a considerable extent creates that moral concern in the very process of mobilizing the movement. On the other hand, the persecuted think that they are the victims and see injustice in the way they are deprived of their natural social rights. This idea is also similar to Goodwin’s view that “It is well known that social movements often arise from a sense of grievance and/or of injustice. This points toward status issues between some who deny adequate status to others and others who feel they are denied the amount of status they deserve” (67).
Therefore, it is not possible to say which party is right or which one is wrong or be prejudice against the members of either group since they are both following after a certain ideology that they think is the right one based on their social circumstances. But we certainly can say which ideology is faulty in our opinion and I believe that a nation cannot deprive its citizens of their right of free religious practices. Therefore, changes need to be made in the constitution of the country so that practice of religion comes prior to the unification of the body—which I believe is important even in a collectivist country like Iran.
So why am I writing just about the Farsi-speaking Christians as opposed to other Christians and why did I choose a specific country like Iran? Well, I grew up in the country of Iran as a Farsi-speaking Christian and have experienced many of the issues reported by social media first hand, so I thought, it would help to actually have a both insider and outsider view on the religious war in Iran.
Emotions play a great role in forming the view of the general public on a certain subject. This is also the case when talking about the war against Farsi-speaking Christianity in Iran. As Goodwin et al. write, “Emotions, we have argued, are collective as well as individual, and they permeate large-scale units of social organization, including workplaces, neighborhood and community networks, political parties, movements, and states, as well as the interactions of these units with one another” (Passionate Politics, 16).
Now it is important to see these emotions in two different contexts and see how they play a role in forming the mindsets of both the persecutor and the persecuted. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the government of Iran has been promoting the idea of having a unified body of Farsi-speaking population which in other words means Farsi-speaking Shi’ais. Therefore, anyone having deviating thoughts from that of the unified body does not belong to that country. At this point, many of the Iranian citizens support this belief which is parallel to what Goodwin et al. believe that “A movement which has widespread social impact, which arouses the moral concern of a majority of the surrounding society, to a considerable extent creates that moral concern in the very process of mobilizing the movement. On the other hand, the persecuted think that they are the victims and see injustice in the way they are deprived of their natural social rights. This idea is also similar to Goodwin’s view that “It is well known that social movements often arise from a sense of grievance and/or of injustice. This points toward status issues between some who deny adequate status to others and others who feel they are denied the amount of status they deserve” (67).
Therefore, it is not possible to say which party is right or which one is wrong or be prejudice against the members of either group since they are both following after a certain ideology that they think is the right one based on their social circumstances. But we certainly can say which ideology is faulty in our opinion and I believe that a nation cannot deprive its citizens of their right of free religious practices. Therefore, changes need to be made in the constitution of the country so that practice of religion comes prior to the unification of the body—which I believe is important even in a collectivist country like Iran.