IRAQ - What should President Bush do?

[ShadowTemplar]

There is this little matter of the US being the Hyperpower of the world... I guess that that is why people complain that they don't get to vote for or against the American el Presidente.

 

The thing you wrote about theocracies not having to be dictatorships is strictly so-so. A dictatorship doesn't have to be oppressive either, it's just that it usually does turn out to be.

 

And there is a great, great difference between having a state church and being subjected to religious autority. In Denmark, for example, it's the other way around: The state bosses the church around (much to the discontentment of the Bishops BTW), whereas the US, which has no state church, is by and large dominated by Christianity, which makes it a half-and-half theocracy (and yes it's oppressive too, so don't try to use that as a counter to what I said about theocracies above).

[TheHobGoblin]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

...except those who cannot vote for him (people from other countries)

 

 

 

Who attack you? Iraq has never attacked you. Al Quida did. But what has Al Qaida to do with Saddam?

 

 

 

Well, if you bomb a guy's home, kill his family and friends, just so you can "protect" yourself, people tends to get a bit mad.

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

Saddam has never attacked you. And it's not probable he will. Bush is not defending anyone, he's just attacking.

 

 

 

hehe that's funny. I have my own ideas on who's acting immature here, but I have no reason to say.

 

 

 

Evil people does not excist. Use your sense of logic instead of blindly following your president, and you will understand that too.

 

 

 

Why is it so bad to critizise? No one here has ever said that USA is evil, only been critizising it's foreign politics.

 

1. The people who support him in other countries. Even the peope, who don't he still cares. But these people want to fight us. We must defend.

 

2. He will attack us. He does have weapons. The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it I know they have weapons. They stalled long enough to let the inspector in. Just enough to hide any weapons.

 

3. Sommone attacks you. What you do fight back. What you want us to use harsh language?

 

4. They will just try attacking us again. We need to show them who they're going up against.

 

5. Not defendsing anyone you say? Your ignorance annoys me. He wants us dead. He has weapons that are hiding. We need to remove the possible threat and he is.

 

6. I seen people who think calling bush names and saying absoultly stupid things are mature.

 

7. So someone mugs or robs you he thinks he is doing good? So someone kills your family just for fun you think he is doing good. So someone threats to kill you he is doing good? Think about it Evil is well alive. Bush knows and everyone who really takes a moment to think about it know evil is all over the world.

 

8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

 

Well, he had an IQ of 80-something last time I checked... Lowest ever for an el Presidente.

 

Where you read that, the False magazine. Thats a load of Bull**** Don't always believe what you hear. He is very smart. Or are you trying to make a insult but not put the blame on you. :mad:

[Breton]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

2. He will attack us

 

Probably not. If he does, he will be chrushed. He's not stupid, you know.

 

He does have weapons.

 

Prove it.

 

The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it

 

We'll see.

 

I know they have weapons.

 

Why? Because Bush said so? Do you really blindly trust him?

 

3. Sommone attacks you.

 

Who attacked you? Certainly not Saddam. Bin Laden and Al Qaida did. I know George Dubyah is pretty bad in geography, but honestly! Bombing the wrong countries is a bit too far.

 

4. They will just try attacking us again.

 

"Again"? I ask you once more, when did they attack you?

 

He wants us dead.

 

A lot of people does. But why should that go out over the innocent?

 

He has weapons that are hiding.

 

Prove it.

 

7. So someone mugs or robs you he thinks he is doing good?

 

He certainly thinks he does good for himself. And he doesn't really care about many others. But is ignorance evil?

 

So someone kills your family just for fun you think he is doing good.

 

Well, when that rarely happens (if ever) it is caused by mental disease. So he has a sickness. Does that make him evil?

 

So someone threats to kill you he is doing good?

 

Ignorant, pretty rude, but evil?? Neh.

 

Think about it Evil is well alive. Bush knows and everyone who really takes a moment to think about it know evil is all over the world.

 

If you will admit that there is evil in the US too, I would respect that sentence a lot more.

 

8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

 

I actually agree.

 

Don't always believe what you hear. He is very smart.

 

But where did you heard that he is very smart? Why should you belive in that then?

 

I don't know what his IQ is, but I belive that he's not really smart, because IMO his speeches are rather moronic.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

2. He will attack us.

 

How do you know?

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

He does have weapons.

 

How do you know?

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it I know they have weapons.

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

3. Sommone attacks you. What you do fight back. What you want us to use harsh language?

 

What attack are you referring to? Saddam appears to be content to just sit back in his own country.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

4. They will just try attacking us again. We need to show them who they're going up against.

 

He's never tried to attack us in this decade. During the Gulf War I suppose, but not lately.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

5. Not defendsing anyone you say? Your ignorance annoys me. He wants us dead. He has weapons that are hiding. We need to remove the possible threat and he is.

 

A lot of people want a lot of people dead. What makes Iraq any different? Nobody argues that the guy is bad. What he's done is disagreeable with the vast majority of the world. But that's not enough reason to go to war.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

6. I seen people who think calling bush names and saying absoultly stupid things are mature.

 

I've seen people who think that too. Name calling is a waste of time. Pointing out problems and possible solutions during informed discussions is more productive use of the average citizen's time.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

7. ... evil is all over the world.

 

Evil is a concept of perspective. There is no good or evil, but rather man's perspective of what is acceptable in a society and what is not. But I think more people agree that Saddam is "evil" than not. Unfortunately, there are many that contend that Bush is evil... but that is theirperspective. Personally, I just think he's just "ineffectual," to quote another person in this thread.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

 

I agree... one should always think before speaking (or writing).

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

.... Don't always believe what you hear. He [bush] is very smart.

 

I wouldn't disagree. He obviously has a better than average intelligence. But that doesn't make him right. One can be an "intelligent" ineffectual leader. And, indications are (IMHO) that he is a megalomaniac or, at the very least, has an elitist mentality.

 

SkinWalker

[Kurgan]

I was just reading an (admittedly biased) opinion piece saying how Muslims should be more mad at Saddam, considering he's been responsible for more Muslim deaths than just about anybody else in recent history. ; p

 

I think they were assuming that arab/Muslims overwhelmingly support him, but I wouldn't take that as a given. I figure people living in Iraq would be forced to at least give lip service to supporting him, out of fear... but the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing might apply in many of those cases.

 

Frankly, I don't think much good can come from this. Sure, the US could take Saddam out of power if they did everything right, but what about after that? That's almost more difficult a question...

[Kurgan]

I guess I'm just talking about using the proper definitions of words.

 

 

Again, "dictatorship" has a negative connotation, for people who uphold democracy as an ideal form of government, obviously.

 

However what a dictatorship is, is simply a government run by one person, an autocratic ruler. Absolute power (more or less). He doesn't have to be a tyrant (but he often is). Often he'll have backing of the military (to stop those who would oppose him), and often has taken power by force (but not always).

 

Some governments we call "dictatorships" are actually what we should call "authoritarian" meaning the government has absolute power over its subjects, but authority is delegated to others, not just the head guy.

 

So I guess you could ask.. could Saddam do whatever he wanted, or would he have to consult with his generals first, or would he make all the decisions or have his head guys trusted to make certain decisions on his authority, etc.

 

But yeah, a theocracy just means the government is intertwined with a religion. In an Islamist state, that would usually mean that the laws of the country would be based on (an interpretation of) the Shariah (religious law) of Islam, from the teachings of Muhammad (contained in the Quran and the Hadith), according to that branch of Islam's interpretation of course.

 

Then lawyers would be religious scholars (makes sense right?) and religious laws would be binding on citizens. Some rules would apply differently to Muslim citizens and non Muslim citizens. How those laws are enforced would also depend on those interpreting the laws. They might expell non Muslims from the country, force them to convert, or have them pay a "tax" and allow them to practice their religion in peace. Or they might appoint some kind of judge for their minority community that operates under a non Islamic law (that's just a guess).

 

It's true, a dictator wouldn't have to be an evil tyrant. The trouble with dictators is that if he IS, there isn't a legal way to remove him from power to prevent him causing damage or abusing his office.

 

So he usually either has to flee into exile, or you have to kill him in a revolutionary coup. ; p

 

And what is "better" or "worse" is subjective. Corruption exists in all government forms. I guess the judge of a government in moral terms would be how well it treats its members, and the social form would be how stable it is, and how easily it can adapt to changing circumstances.

 

Now, the Soviet Union tried to base itself on communism, which upholds the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariet." So you have worker councils, which become the party, and then the party rules for life. The problem there, pretty much, is that the party stays in power, and they eventually cease to become "the people" and end up being the same despots you'd have in any other government, and there's no way to get rid of them or vote for some other opposing party (since all other parties are banned).

 

Now I'm no expert on China, but some communist countries have changed a lot of things in that regrad, to try to circumvent the inherent weaknesses of the system. I guess in a more general sense, a dictatorship is an authoritarian system where power is in the hands of a VERY FEW. And it doesn't have to be theocratic.

 

Again, a theocracy could be very tolerant of religious minorities, its just that religion and politics would be intertwined. To what degree and what religion (or blend of religions) would depend on the individual case. Again, like I said, in the broadest definition, you could consider Great Britain or Germany, who have state churches, to be theocracies, even if they don't actively persecute non members of the official faith.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Read up on your government forms. Theocracy is the worst possible form of dictatorship. But you are right, the connection is unlikely. However, if the US do go in, all guns blazing, then the Al Queda and Mr. Hussein might join forces against their common foe.

they will never join forces. and a theocracy is not a quote dictatorship though in a way it is. what it is is they decide laws based on their religion and enforce it with the strictest consequences. trust me they will never join together they hate each other just as much as they hate the US.

[Kurgan]

I wonder.. is Vatican City a theocracy?

 

After all, that's basically the Pope's country (it's a tiny city state). I hear he has advisors and people who do the main business, while he's kind of a figure head, but essentially it would be a Roman Catholic state (surrounded by Italy which would be majority Catholic, but not a theocracy I think its secular.. correct me if I'm wrong).

 

There are no "strict consequences" there. The death penalty is outlawed in VC.

 

It might be unjust to force somebody to do penance for breaking a religious law for a religion they don't believe in, but surely you can't compare that to execution or torture (as occured in Afgahnistan?) for breaking a tiny religious rule or for speaking "blasphemy."

 

 

I guess the fear with theocracies, is that if one religion has too much power, the government might use it to persecute non-members of that religion. But, when you think about it, there's nothing intrinsically evil with having a state church (it goes against the US Constitution, but that's another discussion). It would be no worse than having a majority ethnic group or race in charge.

 

Now out of a sense of fairness, one could argue that ALL groups should be represented fairly in government. But how does one go about that? Do the reps have to be members of the various racial, ethnic or religious groups in proportions to the population? Or do they simply represent geographical areas?

 

A theocracy in the US won't happen because the Constitution would have to change. There's constant debate between religious and secular circles about how MUCH public presence or influence religious groups should be allowed to have (or not have)... etc.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Kurgan

I wonder.. is Vatican City a theocracy?

 

After all, that's basically the Pope's country (it's a tiny city state). I hear he has advisors and people who do the main business, while he's kind of a figure head, but essentially it would be a Roman Catholic state (surrounded by Italy which would be majority Catholic, but not a theocracy I think its secular.. correct me if I'm wrong).

 

There are no "strict consequences" there. The death penalty is outlawed in VC.

 

It might be unjust to force somebody to do penance for breaking a religious law for a religion they don't believe in, but surely you can't compare that to execution or torture (as occured in Afgahnistan?) for breaking a tiny religious rule or for speaking "blasphemy."

 

 

I guess the fear with theocracies, is that if one religion has too much power, the government might use it to persecute non-members of that religion. But, when you think about it, there's nothing intrinsically evil with having a state church (it goes against the US Constitution, but that's another discussion). It would be no worse than having a majority ethnic group or race in charge.

 

Now out of a sense of fairness, one could argue that ALL groups should be represented fairly in government. But how does one go about that? Do the reps have to be members of the various racial, ethnic or religious groups in proportions to the population? Or do they simply represent geographical areas?

 

A theocracy in the US won't happen because the Constitution would have to change. There's constant debate between religious and secular circles about how MUCH public presence or influence religious groups should be allowed to have (or not have)... etc.

yes vatican city is a theocracy but has no status as a country. as for a radicalist theocracy they would either kill you for going against the religion or put you on the rack.

[Kurgan]

yes vatican city is a theocracy but has no status as a country. as for a radicalist theocracy they would either kill you for going against the religion or put you on the rack.

 

You may be right about the first point.. since IIRC VC has only an "observer" status in the UN. It is awfully small, and more than anything a home for the Papal offices.

 

Sure, a radical theocracy might do that, but then any "radical" government might do that to you, for whatever reason. My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Kurgan

My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are.

 

A theocracy, by very definition, is always oppressive.

 

You are forced to comply to a single religion, a system of laws that is shaped around this, and a ruling body that enforces their interpretation of dogmas on you.

 

Or you will be persecuted.

 

Of course, this doesn't have to be "evil" per se, but if it isn't oppressive, I'm calling Iraq a healthy democracy.

[Kurgan]

A theocracy, by very definition, is always oppressive.

 

So is Great Britain oppressive? They have an established state Church, after all... the Church of England.

 

On the other hand, China has several established/state sponsored religions (including flavors of Christianity and Buddhism, etc.), of course they actively persecute some non-established ones (like the Fulon Gong sect, followers of the Dali Lama in Tibet, and Roman Catholics).

 

You are forced to comply to a single religion, a system of laws that is shaped around this, and a ruling body that enforces their interpretation of dogmas on you. Or you will be persecuted.

 

Does England do this to non Anglicans?

 

Of course, this doesn't have to be "evil" per se, but if it isn't oppressive, I'm calling Iraq a healthy democracy.

 

Iraq isn't a democracy, because a democracy is by definition rule by the people (note: according to dictionary.com, a democracy CAN be one where the people rule through elected representatives.. which would make the US a democracy under one possible definition. Not a "pure" democracy, but still one).

 

In Iraq, Saddam Huessin came to power via the power of the military. His is sustained by their power, and though there are elections, there are no opposing candidates, and no one dares vote against him (for fear of reprisal from their government).

 

In the US you can vote for Nazis and Communists. They probably won't win, but you still have that freedom, and the variances in votes given to different candidates shows that there is healthy disagreement and competition.

 

One could compare a dictatorship to a monopoly, and a democracy to a competative market. ; )

 

 

My point about theocracies, is that a theocracy could be authoritarian, or it could be democratic, or somewhere in between. It wouldn't have to be just one.

[Kurgan]

Btw, sorry for getting off topic. ; p

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Sure, a radical theocracy might do that, but then any "radical" government might do that to you, for whatever reason. My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are.

usually they are because they are usually observed by radicalists.

[TheHobGoblin]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Probably not. If he does, he will be chrushed. He's not stupid, you know.

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

We'll see.

 

 

 

Why? Because Bush said so? Do you really blindly trust him?

 

 

 

Who attacked you? Certainly not Saddam. Bin Laden and Al Qaida did. I know George Dubyah is pretty bad in geography, but honestly! Bombing the wrong countries is a bit too far.

 

 

 

"Again"? I ask you once more, when did they attack you?

 

 

 

A lot of people does. But why should that go out over the innocent?

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

He certainly thinks he does good for himself. And he doesn't really care about many others. But is ignorance evil?

 

 

 

Well, when that rarely happens (if ever) it is caused by mental disease. So he has a sickness. Does that make him evil?

 

 

 

Ignorant, pretty rude, but evil?? Neh.

 

 

 

If you will admit that there is evil in the US too, I would respect that sentence a lot more.

 

 

 

I actually agree.

 

 

 

But where did you heard that he is very smart? Why should you belive in that then?

 

I don't know what his IQ is, but I belive that he's not really smart, because IMO his speeches are rather moronic.

 

1. Hmmm.. In a way I agree with you but..... He might be waiting for a moment of attack or waiting for some sort of forces.

 

2 First answer this what took him so long to let us in?

 

3 We shall

 

4 You know what take that "me being blinded by Bush" Bull**** somewhere else. Like I said before what took him so long?

 

5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam. Also it's Gorge w . Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.Bombing the wrong countries! So your telling me he bombs Canada, South America, England? He fought back at the right ones I'm for sure.

 

6&7 He WILL. he wants to.

 

8 Answer What took him so long? But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

 

9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT. Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

 

10 Bad example. my bad.

 

11 Guess what their is but don't look at Bush look at the crinimals. The people who do crimes.

 

12 Now lets see. 1st was New York Post. 2nd was New York times. 3rd was a republician magazine. 4th was a science article 5th was on tv.... Must I go on? He is good in geography or else he won't become president. I would love to have him president again. Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing. Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words? I should slap you right now for that. He stumbles on words once or twice but their not moronic.

 

Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet. When Bush enters all of sudden he's satan? Thats usiual Democratic Bull. Why don't you grow up. :mad: :mad:

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam. Also it's Gorge Dubya Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.Bombing the wrong countries! So your telling me he bombs Canada, South America, England? He fought back at the right ones I'm for sure.

 

The "he" in this case wasn't Saddam Hussein. It was Bin Laden and his followers. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iraq funded, trained or otherwise supported Bin Laden or Al Queda. It's like attacking Canada because so many Mexicans bum-rushed the Texas border.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

8 Answer What took him so long? But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

 

Sorry... I've lost track of your quoting method.... Are we still talking about Bush?

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT. Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

 

Oh.... perhaps we are j/k

 

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing.

 

That's what should scare people.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words?

 

LMFAO!

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet.

 

As I recall (but you may not have been old enough to have understood what was going on), we Republicans (I was at the time) attempted to impeach President Clinton. Something about getting a ßJ in the oval office.

 

Cheers,

SkinWalker

[Breton]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

2 First answer this what took him so long to let us in?

 

Could be a lot of reasons.

 

4 You know what take that "me being blinded by Bush" Bull**** somewhere else.

 

Never said you were blinded by him. Just asked if you trust him completely in everything he says.

 

5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam.

 

Saddam has said himself that he does not support Bin Laden and Al Qaida.

 

Also it's Gorge w . Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.

 

Ok. "Gorge" w. Bush. I'll remember that.

 

Bombing the wrong countries!

 

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, is he? Bombing does not stop terrorism anyway.

 

6&7 He WILL. he wants to.

 

Just because he wants to doesn't mean he will.

 

But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

 

You are wrong there. He thinks he is doing good. Evilness is not in human nature.

 

9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT.

 

Did you then?

 

Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

 

As I said before, evilness is not in human nature.

 

11 Guess what their is but don't look at Bush look at the crinimals. The people who do crimes.

 

What crimes? How will you define a crime?

 

12 Now lets see. 1st was New York Post. 2nd was New York times. 3rd was a republician magazine. 4th was a science article 5th was on tv.... Must I go on? He is good in geography or else he won't become president. I would love to have him president again. Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing. Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words? I should slap you right now for that. He stumbles on words once or twice but their not moronic.

 

Don't you think calling France and Germany "traitors" is pretty moronic? Don't you think calling people from Greece for "Grecians" is pretty moronic? And how about this:

 

"Some of his minor screw-ups included his declaration on day two of his trip that he intended to "securitize" Russia's dismantled nuclear weapons. Other blunders were a bit more profound as exemplified by a video clip widely played in Europe that shows the President of the United States spitting out his gum into his hand before signing the "historic" Treaty of Moscow. This must be the simple, down-home brand of skill and grace his supporters refer to.

 

Then there were the impromptu speaking engagements that surprised Bush and quickly put an uneasy hush on co-speakers and audiences alike. During one such moment in France, Bush childishly lambasted an American reporter for asking Jacques Chirac a question in, of all languages, French.

 

Bush angrily interrupted the reporter, suggesting that he was only speaking French to show off. When the reporter offered to continue, Bush defensively blurted "Que Bueno" and proceeded to claim that he was bilingual too.

 

Gerard Baker described the scene for the Financial Times, "Reporters shuffled their notebooks and looked at their feet, embarrassed by this spectacle of an American president jeering at a fellow American for speaking their host's language." No wonder Bush's handlers won't let him address the public without a well-written, well-rehearsed script. Que bueno indeed Mr. President. "

 

Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet. When Bush enters all of sudden he's satan? Thats usiual Democratic Bull. Why don't you grow up.

 

Jeez. People should be able to take a bit of critic without getting mad. And why would the republicans keep quiet anyway?

[El Sitherino]

saddam didnt train bin laden and his men. the US did. they did when russia was trying to invade the middle east. we trained him knowing he was a terrorist and known US hater. america also taught irag to build bombs when they were at war with iran. we even gave them materials to build the bombs. there is no connection between iraq and al queada and never will be.

[Kurgan]

usually they are because they are usually observed by radicalists.

 

Granted. However, a democracy "observed by radicalists" (you mean radical fundamentalists?) can be just as bad. Ever heard of the term "mob rule"?

 

I'm not calling for theocracy or saying its an ideal government form, but in and of itself, it is not more or less evil than a non-theocratic model. As an American I've been programmed to be against the idea purely on principle, so no need to worry.

; )

[El Sitherino]

i think we should be run by a democracy and not a republic.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Kurgan

So is Great Britain oppressive? They have an established state Church, after all... the Church of England.

 

Britain isn't a theocracy in any way. It's a government run by elected people, as far as I know, and they're in no way priests justifying their position by claiming divine right.

 

Denmark also has an established state church, but there's still religious freedom for everyone. Our laws aren't based on Christian principles, they're just good, healthy morals.

 

On the other hand, China has several established/state sponsored religions (including flavors of Christianity and Buddhism, etc.), of course they actively persecute some non-established ones (like the Fulon Gong sect, followers of the Dali Lama in Tibet, and Roman Catholics).

 

While China most certainly is oppressive, it's not a theocracy. A country can be oppressive and still not be a theocracy.

 

 

Iraq isn't a democracy

 

I know, I meant it as a joke (:

 

My point about theocracies, is that a theocracy could be authoritarian, or it could be democratic, or somewhere in between. It wouldn't have to be just one.

 

Iran is a textbook example of a theocratic government - that's the only one I can remember right now.

[Kurgan]

I think of us have invented our own definition of "theocracy."

 

According to dictionary.com:

 

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

2. A state so governed.

 

 

It does not say "A dictatorship where only one (fundamentalist) religion is legal, and all others are persecuted."

 

Again, I cite the examples of Great Britain and Germany, both of which have state churches.

 

Is not the Queen of England (Elizabeth II), the head of the Church of England (with the Archbishop of Canterbury under her)? I rest my case.

 

Britain isn't a theocracy in any way. It's a government run by elected people, as far as I know, and they're in no way priests justifying their position by claiming divine right.

Denmark also has an established state church, but there's still religious freedom for everyone. Our laws aren't based on Christian principles, they're just good, healthy morals.

 

Notice in the defintion it doesn't say "officials are not elected." It doesn't say "priests justify their position by claiming divine right." A Buddhist or Confucianist government probably wouldn't claim divine right, but it could still be a theocracy.

 

With a majority Christian population, you could argue, those majority morals are in fact informed by Christian principles, but that's not the point either.

 

Religious AUTHORITY, the Queen has that, she's the head of the Church... even if she is a figurehead.

 

Perhaps China isn't ruled by or subject to religious authority, but in fact RULES religious authority and makes it subject to the state. Maybe that's a better explanation. ; )

 

But you certainly wouldn't see that kind of state involvement and sponsor ship of religions in the US.

 

If you assume that theocracy = Iran, then all theocracies have to be just like Iran. That's a distorted view. One might as well say that all democracies have to be like the US.

 

It might be a text book example of a "bad" theocracy (ie: oppressive, corrupt), though.

 

i think we should be run by a democracy and not a republic.

 

Who? I guess that would be ideal, but again, the bigger a nation, the more difficult it is to run a pure democracy, which is why republics exist. Plus, its hard to get that many people to agree on anything.

[El Sitherino]

the greeks got it to work back in so odd ago. ( cant remember the year sorry)

[Kurgan]

Sure they did, although ancient Greece barred women and slaves from voting.

 

However, Greece itself isn't that big. Perhaps through the use of technology (not having to physically be there to vote) it could be made easier, but the larger the pure democracy and the more spread out over territory, and the more people, the more unweildy.

[El Sitherino]

actually only prisoners of war slaves werent allowed to vote. women were held equal as men if not greater.