PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANCE, AS INTEPRETED THROUGH EXCERPTS FROM A PODCAST BY ALBERT MOHLER... Brad Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia, makes the point in a new book soon to be released that couples should not buy into the soulmate myth—that it is a confusion in the culture to think romance between a man and a woman should be based on some kind of exhilaration and the finding of one's soulmate. Wilcox points to developments such as the publication of the book, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, where I take it that Bach (the author) wrote: "A soulmate is someone who has the locks to fit our keys and the keys to fit our locks." If only marriage were so easy. According to Wilcox, the truth is... even as romance does involve some exhilaration, and certainly massive attraction, the reality is that marriage requires a whole lot more than that, and marriage is still real and still important and still obligatory and still a blessing even when in emotional lows, or bad times, or seasons of adversity. The reality is that marriage is one of God's greatest gifts to his human creatures, yet nonetheless, it still requires a whole lot more than just finding one's soulmate. Furthermore, as Brad points out, one of the problems with being determined to find your soulmate is that you probably don't even know yourself well enough, to know exactly who would make you happy. And he points out the greater satisfaction is found, when a husband who becomes a father, spends time taking care of his children rather than doing the things that he might think were exhilarating at another stage in life. And he finds his greatest satisfaction actually in being a husband and a father and in the obligations that go with that. He warns that, a very modern self-centered soulmate based understanding of marriage has served to weaken this central institution of human society. He's also blunt in stating this... Men and women who buy into the soulmate model appear more likely to end up divorced. He makes a moral statement that Christians should especially understand when he writes this, that the more "subtle psychological truth is that the soulmate model fails to see that happiness in life and in love is less likely to be found when we pursue it directly." That is also a matter of the Christian worldview. First of all, that happiness is nowhere near as precious as joy, and happiness is often found among those who aren't trying their very best in their own self-centered way to find happiness, but are rather fulfilling their obligations even in marriage and in the family. And in those obligations, they find true happiness and true joy. "The husband and father who sets aside his work, smartphone and ESPN in the evenings to help with homework, shoot hoops, and tuck the kids in bed will likely take greater satisfaction from his family life, than if he had pursued his own pleasures of the moment, and he will likely elicit more admiration, affection, and ardor from his wife as a natural response. Family first, me second. This is the paradoxical root to happiness in marriage." It is not that we shouldn't believe in romance, it's that we should believe in a whole lot more—and that love (choosing to act in ways that put the needs and well-being of others ahead of our own) is fundamental. Romance is simply a blessing on the top of love. Unlike romance, marriage (as God intended it) is an objective reality with one its strengths being that we're married whether we feel like it or not. So then in marriage, it's not so much that we marry our soulmate as it is that we find our soulmate in marriage.
What is virtue? Virtue is that which aligns with the character of God—with His holiness, righteousness, justice and moral criteria; not to mention God's laws and commands, all of which are stated in Scripture. It is alignment in character and in behavior, in language and in demeanor, with these criteria. Virtue has nothing to do with cultural popularity, but rather, with godliness. And the opposite of virtue is vice, which is evil, wrongdoing or bad behavior. Vice is the breaking of God's law. The classical thinkers, the classical writers, classical philosophers...they had the notion of virtue, and they actually did a lot of good with it. Of course, they couldn't get to a Christian understanding, because without Christ and without revelation, this wasn't possible. Nonetheless, their ideas on virtue do tell us that God made us in his image as moral creatures. In other words, God embedded in us and in the entirety of creation all the signals of virtue and vice, such that even the ancient philosophers were drawn to make the distinction between virtue and vice, and were also drawn to praise virtue and to condemn vice. That is not an accident. Based on a February 16, 2024 podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler
How is a gecko able to climb up the side of a wall? Bing Copilot Geckos, those remarkable little climbers, defy gravity with their wall-walking abilities. Let's dive into the fascinating science behind their sticky feet! Tiny Hairs (Setae): Geckos have evolved tiny hairs called setae on the undersides of their toes. These setae interact with surfaces using Van der Waals forces, creating an adhesive grip. Imagine thousands of microscopic hooks that allow them to cling to walls and ceilings like miniature superheroes! Van der Waals Forces: In high school chemistry, you might have heard of Van der Waals forces. These weak attractive forces occur between molecules. When geckos press their feet against a surface, the setae hairs come into contact, and Van der Waals forces kick in. These forces arise due to temporary polarization of charges on molecules, causing them to attract each other. Geckos have an abundance of these forces, allowing them to stick to surfaces even though they're weak. Foot Tendons and Rotational Walking: But wait, there's more! Geckos also have a refined foot tendon that enhances their sticking ability. As they walk, they use a rotational motion, maximizing their grip. It's like they've mastered the art of climbing with precision and finesse. Not All Geckos Are Equal: While it's commonly believed that all geckos can climb walls, around 40% of gecko species lack toe pads and limbs for wall adhesion. So not all lizards follow the same mechanism as geckos when scaling steep surfaces. Next time you see a gecko effortlessly scaling a wall, remember their secret: tiny hairs, molecular forces, and a touch of lizard magic!
What you should research to inform your ignorance as relates to Palestine: A country called Palestine never existed with a people known as Palestinians. Moreover, if you look at the Palestinian national soccer team from the 1930s, it was 100% Jewish. In fact, the Palestine Post (which is now the Jerusalem Post) was the Jewish newspaper. The Arabs used to boycott Palestine because that's where the Jews lived. The British Mandate for Palestine required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs; but this requirement and others would not apply to the separate Arab emirate to be established in Transjordan. The Palestinians fled Israel in 1948 partly because they were unwilling to live with Jews, but mainly so that a coalition of Arab military forces would have free reign to annihilate the Zionists, after which the Palestinians assumed they would be able to return at their own leisure. Unfortunately for them, despite being outnumbered, the newly formed Israel Defense Forces (IDF) managed to not only halt the Arab forces, but to also push them back. Consequently, not only did they recapture the territory allotted to them by the United Nations Partition Plan, they ALSO secured approximately 60% of the area allotted to the Arab state. (That sometimes happens when you pick a fight, but end up getting your butt kicked.) Indeed, there IS apartheid in the Middle East, but it's not in Israel. For example… In Jordan, all Palestinian refugees were given citizenship. And yet, though the Jordanian constitution affirms that all citizens are equal before the law, the Jordanian establishment—the so-called East Jordanians, or the population in Jordan before 1948—never fully accepted that new order. However, this is NOT the case in Israel, where Arab citizens have the same legal rights as Jewish Israelis. In Lebanon, most Palestinians do not have citizenship and therefore do not have identity cards, which would entitle them to government services, such as health and education. Also, they are legally barred from owning property and from entering a list of desirable occupations. Palestinians are NOT treated this way in Israel.
LET'S BE HONEST: THE UKRAINE AND RUSSIA THURSDAY | APRIL 11, 2024 R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR. We need to understand that there are many issues that deal with global concerns, international context, and yet the primary discussion often has to do with domestic politics. That is to say, what is going to be the action of the United States government given this challenge in the world scene? How does the United States respond to this? Given the war in Ukraine after the Russian invasion of February of 2022, how is the United States and our allies going to respond in support of Ukraine? Now more than two years later where do we stand? Where are we going? Well, as I said, the domestic situation right now is where most Americans are focused, and that’s because the United States is way behind in terms of what the Biden administration wanted to do and even pledged to do in terms of military, financial and other support for Ukraine and its fight against Russia. You asked the question, why is the United States behind? It is because the administration has run out of funding that it can use in order to send this kind of aid to Ukraine. That’s going to now require congressional authorization, and then action by the White House. That congressional authorization is the big question, and it has frankly been the big question now for a matter of months. There is no doubt that the Biden administration has committed its effort for Ukraine, and at least early in this effort, it was also unquestionable that the American people were solidly behind giving aid and assistance to Ukraine in order to fight back the Russian invasion. And by the way, in the morality of this, there is no question. This was a hostile invasion without cause, by Russia of Ukraine with the intention of gaining territory, and frankly, Russia crushing a weaker adjacent country. So, there’s no doubt morally speaking what’s going on here, you’re looking at an increasingly repressive and an increasingly out of control Russia and a Russia that is increasingly a threat not only to Ukraine, not only to the Baltic States, but quite frankly, to the entire European project, or to the entire structure of Western civilization. And in one sense, this is the revenge of history because Russia has always been a very difficult entity for Europe. And once you expand the European community to include, say, Canada, the United States, the Free World, Australia, New Zealand, et cetera, it has always been difficult to know exactly where Russia might fit into this picture, and we’re going to talk about why. But before we do so, let’s come back to the domestic situation here in the United States, and we’re talking about what might be a genuine political crisis in particular for the House of Representatives, specifically for the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. He has only been speaker for a matter of months. And you now have at least one Republican member of Congress. And just keep in mind that within days, the Republicans will have a majority of one, one seat in the United States House. The very new speaker is now being threatened in terms of removal by a member of his own party’s caucus. This would be Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and admittedly, she is someone far to the Right in terms of American politics. And it’s hard to know what is about principle and what is about show, but it is in any event, an open threat to the speaker that if he moves ahead with legislation, which on the question of Ukraine is not supported by the vast majority of Republicans, he just might be removed from office. He might be one of the shortest termed Speakers of the house in all of American history, following his predecessor who was actually, another one of the shortest tenures of a speaker of the House in American history. So domestically, we’re talking about a difference of agreement. We’re also talking about a crisis of governance, particularly in the Republican majority, even if it’s just a Republican majority of one, in the U.S. House of Representatives. But that issue is going to have to await further consideration on another day. Why would there be a disagreement over Ukraine? Why would there be a pretty clear Republican majority in support of this aid to Ukraine? By the way, it’s a package that puts together aid for Ukraine, aid for Israel, also aid for the military defense of Taiwan in the Pacific. All these against very real threats, in particular, Israel fighting a very deadly war against the terrorist group Hamas. But it is the Ukrainians that are in greatest danger in terms of active military attack now more than two years old, and they’ve been attacked by not only a hostile force, but a far larger nation under the autocratic leadership of Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia. And so as we’re looking at the domestic side, you asked the question, why would there be Republicans who don’t want to approve this funding? Well, there are a couple of reasons, and the most important of these reasons is that many in the Republican majority in the house would say there is no specific exit plan that is indicated here. The Biden administration speaks about leaving all these big questions in the hands of Ukraine. Well, that’s well and good if Ukraine is fighting this in its own terms, but instead it’s asking for billions of dollars of additional American aid. How is this story going to end? A bit of realism in this analysis requires that we understand that the odds have been against Ukraine from the very beginning. And by that, I don’t just mean before the onset of this active military action on February the 24th of 2022, just over two years ago. No. Once you had the breakup of the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th century, Ukraine was always going to be in a very fragile situation, and it was endangered by at least two things. Number one, its own internal problems and a political culture rife with corruption, but also the fact that much of Russia, and a majority of Russians, still believe that Ukraine is a part of Russia. So while in the West, we saw the breakup of the Soviet Union as a very good thing and the rise of all these recovered nationalities, whether it’s the Stans as you look towards the Asian part of Russia, or it is the Baltic States as you look to the north, or if it is Ukraine, for example, along with Belarus and other nations, that all of a sudden were able to declare their independence as sovereign nations after the breakup of the Soviet Union. But we need to recognize that Russia, at the time, reduced to simply being a republic or a federation of Russian speaking peoples, Russia resented the entire process and quite frankly, never morally, much less politically or militarily, accepted the breakup of the entire Soviet Union as an accomplished fact, not to be revisited. Given the economic and political crash that led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia was in no position to try to reconquer regions that had declared their independence. By that time, Russia was having a very difficult time just holding Russia together. And even as there were those who had been bravely fighting against the Communist domination through the Soviet Union, you had major figures celebrated in the West, most importantly, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning Russian intellectual and writer who was clearly one of the greatest enemies of communism and the Soviet government. But Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn himself said that it should be unimaginable that Ukraine would be separated from Mother Russia. Now, I want to speak with clarity here. I believe Ukraine has the right to be independent of Russia. I believe that Russia is absolutely wrong, and you’re looking at the totalitarian aggression of an autocrat like Vladimir Putin serving his own nationalist interest, and building his own political base. But I want to explain to all, that history indicates why the majority of Russians are actually with the Russian president on this. The majority of Russians clearly believe that the independence of Ukraine, certainly including all of what would’ve been say five years ago, considered Ukrainian territory, that is untenable. And that’s a view not only widespread in Russia, it’s hard to argue with any honesty that it’s not the majority position in Russia. And remember, this isn’t the first military action Russia has taken. In one sense, before this, the biggest action came in February of 2014, so that’s fairly recent history. That’s just over 10 years ago when Russia claimed and occupied, and has possessed ever since, the Crimean Peninsula, historically one of the most important pieces of land in all of human civilization. Russia sees the Crimean Peninsula as absolutely vital. For one thing, the Crimean Peninsula affords Russia the only warm water ports that it has. It’s virtually impossible for Russia to claim that it has a worldwide international status if it doesn’t have a single port that is open 12 months a year. Just remember that almost all of Europe in one sense went to war over Crimea and what became known as the Crimean war. Just remember your British literature and the charge of the Light Brigade. So let’s just remind ourselves that worldview matters, history matters according to the Russian worldview, and it’s not just the worldview of Vladimir Putin. In this case, he has only increased his standing with the Russian people because of his action in Ukraine. There are many people in the West who said, “Look, this is going to lead to a weakening of the Putin regime, or this is going to lead to a mutiny, an uprising against the Putin regime because the Russian people won’t stand for the military losses, the loss of life, the casualties that have come in this war.” But there is no real political sign that such a thing has happened. For one thing, Putin has been pretty careful to make certain that when you look at a political base like Moscow, it’s not paying much of a price in terms of the casualty rate as you see throughout much of the rest of the country. You also see the fact that even as Western countries pulled back, and you had a withdrawal of the big American brands from department stores and restaurants, fast food places and all the rest, well, that just gave an opportunity for many Russians as they saw it to move into that space. Now, I want to be careful. I’m not saying here that all Russians support Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I’m not saying that. I’m saying it looks like the vast majority of Russians did, and do. The other thing to recognize is that in the eastern section of Ukraine, and some of that territory is now held by Putin’s invading armies, you have majority Russian-speaking persons. Now, here’s where things have flipped a little bit, and this is not insignificant. Going back, say a decade, there were arguments that a majority of the citizens in those regions of Ukraine actually wanted to be a part of Russia. Well, this is one situation that Vladimir Putin and the Russian military have decisively reversed. It is incredibly clear right now that even the Russian-speaking majorities and some of these Eastern portions of Ukraine, they now don’t want to be a part of Vladimir Putin’s Russia because they have been experiencing, horrifyingly enough, the reality, the gruesome reality of war. It has largely destroyed the towns, the villages, the infrastructure of these regions. Whatever affection Russia had, Russia has pretty much destroyed on its own. As soon as Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2022, the American people were solidly with Ukraine. And I don’t think that was wrong. I think that was right. I think the arguments that were made then, that if you allow this kind of aggression to happen here, it’s going to happen elsewhere. And when it comes to Putin, the fact that he wants to lead a resurgent Russia to press back against Western interest and against NATO nations, I think it is very clear that that assumption made back in 2022 was absolutely valid. But when you think about what is almost assuredly going to come up in the House of Representatives in coming days, just keep this in mind: The Biden administration bears huge responsibility for this problem, not responsibility for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. No. I’m not saying that at all. But they bear responsibility for the fact that the Biden administration has been carrying on the dishonest argument that the end of this is actually up to Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been fighting bravely, and they have been fighting with far more success than most Western military analysts thought possible. So take no credit away from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military. They have been fighting with unparalleled and even unexpected bravery. There were Western military officials who were absolutely certain that Russia would declare victory in Ukraine and take possession of Kiev within something like three or four weeks of when the invasion began in 2022. Hasn’t happened. But here is what has also not happened: Ukraine is in no position to, with credibility, say that it’s going to be able to expel Russia and Russia’s vast military from all Ukrainian territory. We just need to be honest. It is not likely that that is going to happen. And we also need to be honest, the American president, the American administration, has to take responsibility for at least speaking to the United States Congress with credibility, about what the American strategy is. The American strategy can’t just be the answer of deferring to Ukrainian strategy. The only game changer here would be if somehow Russia were to collapse, that’s not going to happen. Or if you were to have NATO nations say, “Look, we’re not just going to send armaments, we’re not just going to send military support, we’re going to send troops.” And frankly, you’ve had the French president, Emmanuel Macron, rattling that saber, in the view of other Western leaders, very irresponsibly. But it’s also irresponsible for American leaders in defending Ukraine, and in ensuring assistance, moral and military to Ukraine. The fact is that it is dishonest to say, “You know, Ukraine alone is going to have to decide how this war ends.” That isn’t true. It has never been true. It is dishonest to say that it’s true. So there are many Republicans in the House of Representatives who say, “Enough. We’re not going to approve any funding for Ukraine until certain criteria are met and certain very clear assurances are given.” I think most of them would approve some level of military aid to Ukraine if there were a very clear plan for how the military effort is to be brought to some kind of acceptable end. Now, of course, there are many Democrats, including the president, President Joe Biden would say, “That’s selling out the Ukrainians.” I’m simply going to respond, “You’re being dishonest to the American people and frankly to the rest of the world. There is no way you actually mean what you say.” There may be some Republican members of the House of Representatives who actually believe that Ukraine’s cause is absolutely lost and sending more American money is just wasting the taxpayer money from Americans. Now, I’m going to say I don’t think most Republicans in the House are there, but it’s also clear that a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives aren’t just going to move ahead with further military authorization up to the billions of dollars without answers to these questions. We’ll be following the story. We will see where it goes, and it’s likely to create headlines if not this week, then in the week ahead. It could lead to a big political crisis here in the United States. Another reminder of the fact that you can have events that will take place thousands and thousands of miles away outside the reach and, quite frankly, outside the imagination or the active thinking of many Americans, maybe millions of Americans, and yet this can lead to a political crisis right here in the US of A. I guarantee you that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House is fully aware of that fact. It’s a good thing the rest of us be aware of it as well.
It seems I'm finally going to finish the process of self-publishing my multiplication book for children, but since I have no real desire to market it, I consulted Bing AI for an initial list of YouTubers from whom I might consider requesting a review. Here is what the "Copilot" offered... Oops...I can't find the list! And when I repeated the question, it left out the channel I wanted to start with. So, here's four channels I found on my own, and a URL where I can look for more when I have the time: Everything Homeschool Seven in All Happy Home Heritage Teach from Home Other possibilities... https://www.bing.com/search?q=YouTubers who review math resources for homeschool families&qs=ds&form=ATCVAJ
This look back has some interesting insights on writing dramatic dialogue. It's also interesting to compare how Ryan's work today is delivered with considerably more energy today than it was back then...
It looks like this is going to be the service I'll be using to transcribe YouTube video audio to text:
LESSONS ON THE MIDDLE EAST Articles by Albert Mohler Part I Absolute Hostility to the West and Further Instability in the Middle East: The Death of Iran’s President and the Future of the Islamic Republic The death and funeral of Iran’s president and other Iranian leaders has brought to American attention, and frankly global attention, the reality of the Iranian regime. And even as the headlines right now have to do with Sunday’s helicopter crash in a mountainous area of northern Iran in the condition of fog. Even now, the big questions are what will be the future of Iran? And we, as Christians, need to understand there’s some very deep worldview issues here. And it requires us to go a little bit further back in the headlines. Indeed, we need to go back further in the headlines even than the term of President Ebrahim Raisi. We need to go back to the Iranian Revolution that took place in 1979. We need to go back to ancient Persia in order to understand what we’re dealing with here and why it is so consequential. Now, in order to gain some footing here, let’s think first of all of geography. The geography puts Iran there in that critical portion of land in the east, in the borderlands. And in particular, you have many Asian countries to the south, and especially to the southeast. And you have Russia very close as you look to the north and to the west. And so, interestingly, as you look at a map of Iran these days, a lot of it is the result of various military actions over the course of the last several centuries, including ongoing conflict with Russia, the Russian Empire, and what vestiges of an empire were represented at the time by Iran. But when I say vestiges of an empire, we need to remind ourselves that what is now the nation of Iran, that geography was at one point one of the most threatening and powerful empires the world had ever seen. You can go back in history and just remember the Persian Empire. So, as you’re thinking about Iran, it is the most central representation of ancient Persia, and the very heart of what was the Persian Empire. You can think of figures throughout history such as Cyrus the Great, and you come to understand that there are intersections here with all kinds of empires, the rising and falling of empires. And of course, you have an intersection with the experience of the nation of Israel, where Cyrus the Great is mentioned, let’s just remind ourselves, in Scripture. You can’t tell the history of Israel in the Old Testament without Cyrus the Great, you can’t tell the history of the world without reference to the Persian Empire. But for the better course of the last several hundred years, we weren’t so much talking about anything like a Persian Empire. And much of that portion of the world was basically not at the center of world affairs. But ever since the middle of the 1970s, Iran has taken on a new significance. But even as we’re thinking about that, we need to recognize you could go back just a few decades and there were hints that Iran was going to be a big part of the world conversation. For one thing, in the aftermath of World War I, one of the big questions is what would happen to much of that world? And remember, that a part of what happened with the end of World War I was that you also had, even before the armistice, you had the collapse of the Tsarist Empire, the Russian Empire. You had the rise of the Bolshevik Revolution, and you had all kinds of questions about the future of what had been the Russian Empire. So, one of the things you have to note is that even as in 1925, a regime came to power in Iran, the leader became known as the Shah, the Pahlavi family became the dynasty. One of the big questions was how Iran would position itself between the great powers of the day. And at least for many years, it was not exactly clear where that alliance or allegiance would fall, but eventually, it largely fell into congruence with the interest of the British Empire, and also of American foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War, with Iran being so important for two reasons. One, geostrategically, it was right there very close to what became the Soviet Union. And then, in terms of the energy economy, Iran turned out to be a net exporter of oil. But from the start, there was an awkwardness in Western relations with Iran, and if for no other reason than you had Islam as a major factor. And yet, that also plays in some interesting ways into the history of Iran in modern times. Because even as the Pahlavi dynasty was in place and often, ruthlessly so ,with the support of Western powers, including, most importantly, the United States for so many years, it was not a matter of great affection for many people in Iran. And in particular, for those who saw the Pahlavi dynasty as hopelessly corrupt, and at least in part corrupt because of its involvements with the West. And as you’re thinking about Islam in what is now Iran, just keep in mind it is not the majority Sunni Islam of most of the Islamic world. It is Shia Islam, the adherents are called Shiites, and it’s often referred to as Shiite Islam, or a Shiite Republic of Iran as an Islamic Republic. And just remember that as you’re talking about Shiites, you’re not talking about, by the way, a distinction in Islam over the use of force. That’s not true. Many Americans thought that because of the rise of terrorism largely rooted in Shiite Islamic cultures and largely personified by Iran at the time, by the late 1970s going into the ’80s and beyond. But that was actually a misapprehension. Much of Islamic terrorism comes not from the Shiite part of that world, where quite frankly, it is commonplace, but also from forces of Shia Islam. In particular, the sect known as the Wahhabis, the ideology known as Wahhabism. And much of that is actually centered not in Iran, but in Saudi Arabia. Another aspect of Shia Islam that deserves our attention is that it is avidly apocalyptic. It’s apocalyptic because the version of Islam that is represented here is one that claims that Islam was well-represented by the descendants of Muhammad, and they were known as the 12 imams. The most interesting twist comes near the end of the first millennium when it is argued that the 12th or the last of the imams disappears. It is claimed by the Shia adherents that the 12th Imam will appear again. That will be the age of the establishment of a global Islamic reality. And Iran and the Shia Muslims in Iran see themselves and their efforts as a part of that larger theological picture. Now, the biggest conflict in terms of many of these centuries has been a conflict not between Islam and the West, that’s always been there, at least mostly as represented by for most of those centuries, the Ottoman Empire. But it is a conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims, and the minority Shiite Muslims, and Iran is the center of Shiite influence. And all that came to the attention of the West with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the establishment under the leadership of the man known as the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Khomeini as he became known in the West, was the very face of Shia Islam and of course of the Islamic Republic. And this became a matter of daily headline news, indeed almost hourly headline news in the United States because of the capture by Iranian students of those who became the hostages in the United States embassy there in Iran. And the hostage crisis as it became known, actually not only changed history, it changed the way that news broadcasting was done. You had the development of late night news programs such as ABC’s Nightline. You also had the advent of cable television with 24 hour coverage. All this was basically transformed during this era, not only by just the general events of the age, but specifically, by the hostage crisis. The hostage crisis, by the way, was not resolved until the hostages were freed after negotiations with the United States government. And several others were involved, as you would imagine as well. But it wasn’t until the day of the inauguration of Ronald Reagan as president of the United States that the hostages were freed. And that is because the conflict between Iran and the United States came down, at least in part to what was understood as a personalized conflict between the Grand Ayatollah in Iran and the leader of what the Shia called the Great Satan, which is the United States, who was then President Jimmy Carter. Now, it’s important to recognize that the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran was the establishment of the most aggressive Islamic power one could imagine in the modern world. And Iran intended not only to seize the headlines, but to seize the initiative in the Muslim world. And much of the attention that is directed towards the conflict between Iran and the West needs to be modified by our understanding that some of the regimes that are most wary of and concerned about Iran are the Sunni regimes, for example, of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. They might want to say this softly, but trust me, they’re saying it. So, the Shah of Iran was deposed, his regime came to an end. On February the 11th of 1979, the Islamic Republic was declared in Iran. And ever since then, Iran, not only through the hostage crisis, but ever since, has been a major force of malign influence in the world from the American perspective, and has been openly hostile. And it sees itself as a religious worldview in absolute opposition to the Great Satan, which is often described, not only by the Shia in Iran and elsewhere, but also by the Wahhabis in Sunni Islam as being hopelessly corrupt, atheistic, and depraved in every way. And by the way, it’s also important to recognize that there were emissaries of both versions of Islam who visited the United States in the 20th century, and they weren’t absolutely wrong in documenting the depravity they said they found here. Now, it’s important to recognize, and this is something that many Americans will miss, that the man who died among others in this helicopter crash, Ebrahim Raisi, was indeed the president of Iran. That does not mean that he was the most powerful political figure, not at all. And instead, that would mean the current supreme leader in Iran, Ali Khamenei, and he remains in power, but he’s 85 years old. One of the things that’s important about Ebrahim Raisi is that he had been considered at least a possible, maybe even the likely successor as the supreme leader. Obviously, that expectation came to an end, there on that mountainous hillside in Northern Iran. But this is where we need to go back and put the story together. On Sunday, all across the world, headlines were released saying that the Iranian government had said that they were missing the helicopter, and that it is believed that the helicopter had experienced what the government called a hard landing. Now, almost immediately, I think anyone seeing that understood it to be a likely euphemism for a crash. And it’s also very interesting to note that it was reported right at the time that this helicopter, which by the way turns out to have been quite antiquated, was flying in mountainous territory there in Northern Iran in conditions of heavy fog. It also turns out that there were aviation advisories in the region. It raises the obvious question as to why the president of the nation and its foreign minister would be on this helicopter in the fog in the mountains. As you know, previous headlines have reminded us that is a very, very dangerous combination. It seemed to take quite a long time before the helicopter was located. It turned out that it was located, at least in part, with help from authorities in Turkey, who were using imaging devices to hone in on sources of heat. By the time it was located, it was very clear that there were no survivors of the crash. Now, I mentioned that this was an older helicopter. Indeed, it was older. It goes all the way back to the period before the Iranian Revolution because after that revolution, the United States and other Western allies put trade sanctions in place. It’s one of the reasons why Iran for so many years had no modern airplanes, either when it came to its air force or when it came to its civil aviation. The airliners flown by Iran, well, let’s put it this way. There were many aircraft hobbyists who went to Iran in order to fly on aircraft who could not be found in the Western world precisely because they were so old. But this helicopter’s age, it is derived actually from the Huey helicopter that became so well-known during the age of Vietnam, I repeat during the age of the Vietnam War, in the United States. Its civilian component is known as the Bell Jet helicopter. And in this case, it was very old, and the nation had not been able to buy adequate parts for a very long time. It declared that it had reached self-sufficiency in terms of aircraft parts, but it’s not at all clear that that was true. In any event, you had a very old helicopter with very old technology, flying in the fog in the mountains, and you can imagine how catastrophic this could turn out to be, and it was. By the time that the wreckage was located, there were no survivors. Part II The Background Story in Iran — The Rise and Fall of Empires, and Emergence of Modern Islamic Theocracy And this led of course to the political crisis of the regime there in Iran, because if you’re going to stake all your power on a very few limited number of officials, and you’re going to drive an ideological regime that is built on the repression of the people, when you have crucial members of that autocratic tight circle die, you are left with a power vacuum. And Iran’s supreme leader moved pretty quickly to seek to fill that void, at least temporarily. Declaring that elections will be held in about 50 days, hence. But in the meantime, Mohammad Mokhber, who had been the vice president, would become the interim president. Here’s where we need to recognize that Iran has remained in power through the exercise of the most ruthless coercion exercised by the state, and thus by the supreme leader and by the Iranian government, even against its people. That has included mass executions from the beginning of the Iranian Republic until now. It has included the use of force, including deadly force, including executions, including public executions, not only of many, many people numbering in the hundreds and thousands, but even of teenagers and children. It is to say that this is a regime that seeks to hold its credibility by the exercise of absolutely ruthless force. And it’s also important to recognize that in this case, the religious leadership is coming from a variant of Islam that claims that the very use of that force is sanctioned by Islam, and even following in the example of some ways, of Muhammad the prophet. So, it’s important to recognize that as we’re looking at Iran, we’re looking at the political crisis there, it isn’t at all clear that autocratic and totalitarian governments can handle this kind of crisis all that well. It is no doubt going to show strains. It’ll be very interesting to see because this is coming even as the supreme leader is 85 years old, and the most obvious question is who will follow him? It is also important to recognize that history reveals that when there is this kind of a crisis, it often brings out an even greater ruthlessness. If the old regime supposedly earned its credibility by being ruthless, any new regime, having even less political power, might decide that it has to be even more ruthless. It’s also important to recognize that even as Iran recognizes the United States and our allies as the Great Satan, and thus, the great enemy to be opposed, we should expect more terrorism, we should expect more of what we saw with Iran’s attempt to launch an aerial attack upon Israel. The very fact that it wasn’t all that successful doesn’t mean that it would not be in the future. And Iran has been threatening to develop nuclear weapons for the better part now of 30 years. But finally, on this issue today, we need to recognize that the conflict between Iran and the West, including most importantly, the nation that has been known as the Great Satan representing the West, the United States of America, that this conflict is not one that can be resolved through any normal political process. It is one that is a giant clash of worldviews, which of all people we had better understand. And it puts to the lie the claim of a modern secular age and so many of those who would seek to lead and shape it, that we are way past theology in this world, and that anyone who takes theology seriously is just out of step. Well, if you don’t take theology seriously, you’re not going to understand what in the world is going on in Iran, and that’s going to make you very dangerous.