No problem. I'm just a free person.
Unless that is, you think my lacking of a compulsion to bend at the knee to a fancy title is a problem.
Just because we don't have titles in the US, we can't acknowledge those of people who come from a different tradition?
Exactly. We don't. Other "traditions" allow for all sorts of injustices. In some cultures, slavery is a time honored "tradition". If one of those slaves comes to the U.S., should we "honor" their title and make sure they have their freedoms curtailed? It's the same thing as honoring the title of prince, except coming from the other direction.
Here in the U.S., we have our own "traditions". Ones we have earned through our own genius, blood, and sweat. We only honor titles that have been earned, such as Doctor, Master of Science, or Captain. Titles aquired through accident of birth have no meaning here. We bow to no one. Our commander in chief is called Mr. President. While Mr. Reza Pahlavi is here, as a guest of this country, he will follow our traditions and remain Mr. Reza Pahlavi, because, here in the United States, the title of Private First Class holds more weight and meaning then "Crown Prince Anything".
Thomas Jefferson is not God,
If you think I was implying that or basing my argument on that, then you hust don't Get It.
and his war propaganda
And if you think his writings on the Rights of Man were mere war propaganda, then you really don't Get It. You neither understand his words, nor comprehend the rights he described. Tell me (I am assuming you are in the U.S.), do you enjoy those rights and freedoms his writings described and we fought two bloody wars to protect?
does not apply to the whole world for all time.
I disagree. Be that as it may be, though, Mr. Reza Pahlavi is not "out there" in the "whole world". He is here, in the United States. And our traditions of individual equality and liberty do still apply here (despite the best efforts of the democrats).
The American way is not necessarily what is best for any other country.
I beg to differ. However, you may be right. It could be that not everyone out there is capable of handling the awesome burden of freedom and liberty. It definitely appears that, at least on this message board, there are some people who would prefer to be comfortable little slaves and subjects rathern than stand up, grow up, and be free.
If royalty and titles are part of a country's culture and traditions, as they are part of Iran's, then that should be respected.
If Iranians want to practice the folly of respecting royalty and inherited titles, that is their business. We, as free people, are obliged to no such subservience.
I suppose you think all the Americans who have enthusiastically followed the British royal family over the years,
I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
The first group are no different from Americans who read the tabloids and follow the lives of hollywood celebrities. The second group are those for whom the study of the british royal family is a hobby, much like trainspotting or stamp collecting. They are similar to those Americans who have deeply studied the fantasy works of J.R.R. Tolkein. Their study and knowledge may be very exacting and comprehensive, but it is of a subject without any real truth to it, and only has meaning and importance to other Tolkein or british royalty scholars.
and to whom titles obviously mean something, have "chains in their brains."
And this brings up the third group. These are the true believer monarchists. You call yourself one, yes? These are the ones who actually want to be subjects, or peasants, or slaves (it's just a matter of degree). They crave a position in an artificial heirarchy because they lack the capacity to stand tall, free, and equal. Freedom is scary, after all. They do not appreciate the sacrifices spent by those who gave so much to forge the liberty and freedom they now enjoy. They should go back to England (or wherever) and hold their tongues when they speak to free people (who, in this case, probably are their betters). Their words are without meaning for free people, and their desires are an insult to all the good free people who have sacrificed so much for the freedoms they so lightly cast away.
I found this impossible to pass up:
"No problem. I'm just a free person."
I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.
"Unless that is, you think my lacking of a compulsion to bend at the knee to a fancy title is a problem."
No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status. If anyone suggested Americans should kneel to anyone I must have missed it.
"Exactly. We don't. Other "traditions" allow for all sorts of injustices. In some cultures, slavery is a time honored "tradition". If one of those slaves comes to the U.S., should we "honor" their title and make sure they have their freedoms curtailed? It's the same thing as honoring the title of prince, except coming from the other direction."
Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.
"We only honor titles that have been earned, such as Doctor, Master of Science, or Captain. Titles aquired through accident of birth have no meaning here."
That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.
"We bow to no one. Our commander in chief is called Mr. President."
Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.
"While Mr. Reza Pahlavi is here, as a guest of this country, he will follow our traditions and remain Mr. Reza Pahlavi, because, here in the United States, the title of Private First Class holds more weight and meaning then "Crown Prince Anything".
Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.
(snip)
"You neither understand his words, nor comprehend the rights he described. Tell me (I am assuming you are in the U.S.), do you enjoy those rights and freedoms his writings described and we fought two bloody wars to protect?"
Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?
"I disagree. Be that as it may be, though, Mr. Reza Pahlavi is not "out there" in the "whole world". He is here, in the United States. And our traditions of individual equality and liberty do still apply here (despite the best efforts of the democrats)."
Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance. I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)
(snip same world conquest content)
"If Iranians want to practice the folly of respecting royalty and inherited titles, that is their business. We, as free people, are obliged to no such subservience."
Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.
"I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves."
That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."
To which two wars are you referring? Presumably the American War for Independence is one. As for "rights and freedoms," what about the rights and freedoms of the American loyalists who were harrassed, tarred & feathered, and driven out of the country because they wished to remain loyal to the Crown? The atrocious treatment of the loyalists by the "Sons of Liberty" showed the revolution to be hypocritical from the very beginning.
I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
As my website makes clear, I could fall in all three of your insulting categories of American monarchists, but yes, I am certainly a "true believer." I am also a Tolkien fan (please spell his name correctly), so I guess that makes me doubly irrelevant in your view.
These are the ones who actually want to be subjects, or peasants, or slaves
I am sure that the present-day residents of Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Spain will be most interested to learn that they are akin to slaves. Monarchism has nothing to do with wanting to be a peasant. Rather, it is the recognition of the need to give honor to a person who by inheriting his or her position connects the present with the past and impartially symbolizes the entire nation as no politician could. There is nothing remotely degrading about an appreciation of the splendid pageantry, traditions, and rituals associated with monarchy. These things exist for the benefit of the people, not for the monarch. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate them.