Iran Stands Firm In The Face Of US And Israeli Attempts To Intimidate Her For Obeying The Old And New Testaments, Declares “Our Society Has Moral principles, And According To These Principles We Live.”

The sodomites are forcing the nations of the world to bend over and become infected with the moral illness they define themselves by. The US and Israel are two of the biggest acolytes involved in furthering this agenda in all nations, and few have been able to resist them. One of those nations, at least publicly, has been Iran, where the foreign minister recently stood strong over attempts to intimidate him over Iran’s stance on meting out the punishment that the Old and New Testaments designate for those who deign themselves to be citizens of the republic of sodom:

In response to questions today in Tehran from a reporter for the mass circulation German paper Bild, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reiterated his country’s lethal homophobic law and its opposition to the Jewish state and the US.

Paul Ronzheimer, a reporter for the Bild, wrote on Twitter that he asked Zarif two questions: “1. Where do you stand regarding Israel’s right to exist? 2. How do you deal with the executions of gays?”

Regarding Iran’s execution of gays, Zarif said that: “Our society has moral principles, and according to these principles we live. These are moral principles regarding the behavior of people in general. And that’s because the law is upheld and you abide by laws.”

Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday: “The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights makes clear that these answers from the Iranian regime are violating basic UN principles. UN members should agree with the Declaration in order to be members. Criminalizing homosexuality violates the Declaration, plain and simple.”

Volker Beck, a German Green party politician and LGBT activist, told the Post: “Zarif makes clear what Iran stands for: contempt for the human rights of homosexuals, women and religious minorities.” Beck, who is also a lecturer at the Center for Studies in Religious Sciences (CERES) at the Ruhr University in Bochum, added whoever supports the mullahs knows what they represent. He said that “The hanging of homosexuals and stoning women is considered a moral principle by the Islamists in Tehran.”

The Post reported in January that Iran’s clerical regime publicly hanged a man based on an anti-homosexual Islamic law. The unidentified man was hanged on January 10 in the southwestern city of Kazeroon.

According to a 2008 British WikiLeaks dispatch, Iran’s mullah regime has executed “between 4,000 and 6,000 gays and lesbians” since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

In 2016, the Post reported that Iran’s regime had executed a gay adolescent that year – the first confirmed execution of someone convicted as a juvenile in the Islamic republic.

Hassan Afshar, 19, was hanged in Arak Prison in Iran’s Markazi Province on July 18, 2016, after he was convicted of “forced male-to-male anal intercourse” in early 2015.

In 2011, Iran’s regime executed three Iranian men after being found guilty of charges related to homosexuality.

The Post report detailing the Iranian regime’s public hanging of the man in January played a role in the announcement by US President Donald Trump’s administration in February that it will be launching a campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality across the globe.

Grenell – who is the administration’s most high-profile openly gay official – told the Post in February that “71 countries criminalize homosexuality and eight will put you to death for being gay. The Trump administration is launching a new push with our European allies to end this human rights outrage.”

The ambassador is spearheading the international effort to stop the persecution of the LGBT community in countries that impose criminal penalties – including the death penalty – on homosexuals.

Grenell credited the Post in a commentary that he wrote on February 1 for the Bild, Europe’s largest paper: “The recent press reports, first carried by The Jerusalem Post, that the Iranian regime publicly hanged a 31-year-old man for being gay, should be a wake-up call for anyone who supports basic human rights. Politicians, the UN, democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up – and loudly.”

“In Iran, where children as young as nine can be sentenced to death, gay teenagers are publicly hanged in order to terrify and intimidate others from coming out. Iran’s horrific actions are on par with the brutality and savagery regularly demonstrated by ISIS,” he added. (source, source)

Now homosexuality and Islam are not anything new, for as has pointed out repeatedly, the sodomite issue with Islam is a difference of words and roles but not actions as Islam recognizes a “third gender” of men who are believed to be “women”, and this based on the words of Mohammed and Islamic sacred tradition. As such, Islam will regard two men who dress and act as men to be sodomitic and punishable by death (liwat), but will say that a man who sodomized another man who acts like a woman (mukhannath) is not sodomy and therefore permissible.

Likewise, homosexuality and Persian culture is another thing that cannot be dismissed, as it has a history going back before Islam and has endured all the way through her domination by the Muslims since the seventh century. Homosexual behavior was openly practiced in Iran up through the 1979 revolution. Noting this, it is safe to say that while the status of homosexuality has varied throughout the ages, it is likely that the current period of Persian history is the most “anti-LGBT” that it has ever been.

Professor Janet Afary of Purdue University, speaking in an article to Gay Star News in 2013, reflected that the current Iranian approach to homosexuality was atypical of its historic conduct. However, as she noted, the Iranian Revolution was in part brought about by “moral outrage” at the conduct of the Shah and his family, who openly embraced homosexuality or bisexuality and what many people regarded, rightly so, as immoral and degenerate, and that the tipping point for many was a mock “marriage” that sodomites did:

Afary noted that the virulence of the current Iranian regime’s anti-homosexual repression stems in part from the role homosexuality played in the 1979 revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers to power. In her new book, she and Anderson write: “There is also a long tradition in nationalist movements of consolidating power through narratives that affirm patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality, attributing sexual abnormality and immorality to a corrupt ruling elite that is about to be overthrown and/or is complicit with foreign imperialism. Not all the accusations leveled against the [the deposed Shah of Iran, and his] Pahlevi family and their wealthy supporters stemmed from political and economic grievances. A significant portion of the public anger was aimed at their ‘immoral’ lifestyle. There were rumors that a gay lifestyle was rampant at the court. The shah’s Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda was said to have been a homosexual. The satirical press routinely lampooned him for his meticulous attire, the purple orchid in his lapel and his supposed marriage of convenience. The shah himself was rumored to be bisexual. There were reports that a close male friend of the shah from Switzerland, a man who knew him from their student days in that country, routinely visited him.

“But the greatest public outrage was aimed at two young, elite men with ties to the court who held a mock wedding ceremony. Especially to the highly religious, this was public confirmation that the Pahlevi house was corrupted with the worst kinds of sexual transgressions, that the shah was no longer master of his own house. These rumors contributed to public anger, to a sense of shame and outrage, and ultimately were used by the Islamists in their calls for a revolution.

“Soon after coming to power in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality.” (source)

Contrary to the image cultivated in the Western media, religion in Iran does not wield a dominant force in public life, and is regarded as a thing for elderly people rather than the young. Judging by the fact that approximately seven thousand people have been put to death for engaging in sodomitic behavior, there is a significant amount of people partaking of that act in the nation.

The Bible makes clear that sodomy is a sin that is “worthy of death”, in both the Old and New Testaments, and for which people have been rightly put to death for doing because of the heinous nature of the sin spoken about by the Church and Saints throughout the ages.

America regards herself as a quasi-moral “light to the world”. Some people take this to be one of spreading “Christian values”. Others call it “American (secular” values”. Both believe the US has a superior moral stance of some kind in comparison to other nations.

However, who is the more moral nation? Iran, who while being a Muslim nation is carrying out the Biblical prescriptions for a particular sin of a uniquely heinous nature, and based on her statements appears to be doing it for moral reasons? Or the nation who claims a sense of moral superiority over others yet defends sins which “cry to heaven for vengeance”?

Iran has many problems, but on this issue her stance versus that of the US and Israel is one of the last national voices of conscience against one of the greatest evils a man can do that is wielding historically unprecedented levels of power, so high that it is arguable they have never been so expansive in all of human history. While she is not a “imperial power”, she is a regional power, and if Iran were to fall, she would be the last significant power save for possibly Nigeria in the world “house of cards” before sodom asserts herself economically and politically over the nations of the world.

The “fall” of Iran- be capitulation to homosexuality, or by a war with the US and Israel- which she would absolutely lose and for which reason she will not start -where her conquest leads to a forced legalization of the behavior, is not something to cheer. It is rather to note that there are no more nations in the world of serious power who will stand up to the LGBT agenda. It signals, in a way, the near complete conquest of all peoples by this practice.

Click Here To Donate To Keep This Website Going