Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Obama waffles on the Ground Zero mosque

by shergald Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:27:53 AM EST

Crossposted from OpenLeft (USA)

This fucking guy is really something. He recently said that he knows how to politik! Is this what he means?

Obama's Ground Zero Mosque Comments: President Recalibrates

My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. I was not commenting on and will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country's about and I think it's very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...


Comments

How is that waffling?

He didn't change his position at all. He just corrected people who misinterpreted his original statement. If he wanted to prevent Republicans from twisting he his words around, he would never say anything. Not sure how you can blame him for Republicans' dishonesty.

by: miasmo

I disagree.

If he hadn't meant to do anything except recite the Constitution's freedom of religion clause, he should have kept his mouth shut. I for one construed his initial remarks as being supportive of the construction of Cordoba House. I'm sick and tired of parsing his words.

by: bmull

That's nonsense. Republicabs only believe in the 2nd Amendment.

I think it's a good idea for the President to remind us every now and then of the other ones.
This will turn into another example of how Gibbs was right after all.

by: steviez314

I think Obama is terrible, but I don't think he waffled on this issue

Here's the real waffler:

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

by: metamars

Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League essentially said the same thing.

When Obama refused to comment on the "wisdom" of building a mosque near Ground Zero, he threw the insensitivity point back out there. And that's all that Foxman meant to say.

What he should have said is that Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere in the US, two blocks from Ground Zero or otherwise. As it stands, it is as if ordinary decent Muslim-Americans must share in the blame for 9/11, which is just to stir up more Islamophobia.

by: shergald

And now we have NY Governor Patterson waffling.

You can't really have it both ways, disagree with Foxman and then agree with him in an afterthought:

Albany - Sponsors of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero are not slamming the door on Gov. Paterson's idea to build the center someplace else.

"We are open to a conversation to find out more on what the governor has in mind," the center, Park51, said in a Twitter post yesterday.

While mosque opponents charge the chosen site is insensitive to 9/11 victims, Paterson doesn't oppose the planned location.

He suggested earlier this week it might ease tensions if the center was further away from Ground Zero, and raised the possibility of offering state-owned land.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...

Ease tensions for whom. Just who is creating the tension? Sarah Palin? What a joke this is.

by: shergald

A further thought.

If the Muslim organization is forced by dint of social pressure to move the site of the planned mosque, the 9/11 terrorists will have won another victory: they will have succeeded in chipping away at American freedoms, perhaps of even institutionalizing Islamophobia.

The Ground Zero mosque is only one of many antiIslamic efforts to stop mosque building across the country. It seems to be just another right wing GOP effort to create a new racism upon which they can recruit voters. With Reagan's racism against Blacks having dissipated, what is left for the GOP to run against?

Muslims (terrorism) and Hispanics (aka the anti-immigration effort)!

For what it's worth: a New York Daily News internet poll.

Poll Results

A Landmarks panel vote clears the way for a mosque near Ground Zero. Is it an appropriate location for the mosque?

Yes, there is no reason why it should not be there. 69%  

No, it does not belong so near the site of the 9/11 attacks. 24%  

I'm not sure. 7%  

http://www.nydailynews.com/nyd...

by: shergald

Display:
Another comment from Paul Rosenberg, Open Left:

Digby Has A Great Post About This

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/prez-orders-one-from-column-and-one.html

The difference between Bloomberg's support for the mosque and Obama's support for the idea of the mosque is the difference between between day and twilight.

Heck, even the ADL agrees that they have the constitutional right to build the mosque.

Once again, Obama undercuts his own appearance of principle with the reality that compromising principles is his only principle.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

by: Paul Rosenberg




by shergald on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 11:20:42 AM EST
On a slightly different note, I can't help to wonder how the Japanese would feel if an American citizen proposed to build a McDonalds on Hiroshima's Ground Zero.

Constitutional or not, it's the wrong place to build a mosque. Instead of bridging the divide between Islam and the West, this project is doing the exact opposite before it's even started.

by Lynch on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 03:53:44 PM EST
The McDonalds at Naka Nishihakushimachiyo 15-4 in Hiroshima is almost as close to the Hiroshima Peace Memoria as the mosque is to NY's Ground Zero. Same applies to the McDonalds at Dachau and the concentration camp.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 04:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't know that. But I'm sure that it in no way contributed to the reconciliation between the Japanese and the Americans. If anything, it contributed to the contrary.
by Lynch on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 01:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch:
I didn't know that.

You should do some homework before making such statements, then.

Lynch:

I'm sure that it in no way contributed to the reconciliation between the Japanese and the Americans. If anything, it contributed to the contrary.

Ludicrously lame argument...

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thing is, there is already a mosque on the site of the proposed centre. Do you think that the existing congregation should be forced to move further away from Ground Zero?
by Gag Halfrunt on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 05:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're just not getting it. Islam did not bring the Twin Towers down. Some religious extremists allied with a group called Al Qaeda did. In fact, predominantly Muslim countries around the world expressed sincere sympathy toward the US on 9/11.

Should Americans blame German-Americans for Hitler's antics during WWII, or Italian-Americans for Mussoulini's?

America just has to get over its Islamophobia just as we are starting to get over Black racism, and it does not help to acquiesce to the bigots or just plain ignorance to move the proposed site of the mosque. To do so would be a concession to bigotry and ignorance.

by shergald on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 05:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it seems like some Americans could blame Japanese-Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I don't think either or your examples would be a stretch.

9/11 changed everything: didn't you get the memo?

we are starting to get over Black racism,

<wipes tears from eye>

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're not suggesting that racism doesn't exist in the British Isles, are you? Or that anti-Islamism doesn't exist in France or Europe in general?

by shergald on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 08:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Interestingly, the immediate online reaction of many Americans of any notice being taken of the horrors of Hiroshima on its anniversary was to shout things like "Nanking! What about Nanking!". US horrors always need to be immediately compared to those of others, as if that excuses the US.

It what part of my comment did I raise anything about Europe or European racism? I mean, you're technically correct, in that there is precisely zero information about racism in UK or Ireland or anti-Islamism in France or Europe in my comment, but I don't think that's what you meant.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 03:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just like the Blitz justifies the firebombing of, well, all of Germany, really.

(Hamburg and Dresden most famously, of course)

Let's not fool ourselves, the strategic imperative to massively kill civilians in order to break the enemy's will to fight is still alive and well (the US likes its shock and awe...).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 04:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should Americans blame German-Americans for Hitler's antics during WWII, or Italian-Americans for Mussoulini's?

Japanese-Americans were in fact interned.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 08:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Japanese-Americans were interred during WWII. And they were not trusted. Does that mean we should not trust Muslim Americans, or that we should blame them for 9/11?

I don't think so. Yet, there is that implication from a minority of Americans, mostly right wing GOP types, that all Muslims are extremists and interested in jihad against America. A mosque near Ground Zero is an insult to the victims of 9/11, even though Muslims and Muslim Americans were among the dead.

Ignorance and bigotry should not triumph in this controversy.

by shergald on Sun Aug 15th, 2010 at 08:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm just saying that the rhetorical question you asked invites the answer "yes, by precedent". So don't use that rhetorical question. Rhetorics 101, really.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 03:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As were, in smaller numbers, German-Americans and Italian-Americans.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 02:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all.

The problem was, as it is today for Muslims, that they, the Japanese, were different. They were not Caucasians for one thing, and they ate strange food, for another. Muslims are not Christians even though Jesus and Judaism is somehow incorporated into their "book."

Terrorism didn't just begin on 9/11, agreed.

Still, are all of these Euro-posts above intended to justify bigotry and prejudice in the NYC mosque controversy?

by shergald on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 11:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
are all of these Euro-posts above intended to justify bigotry and prejudice in the NYC mosque controversy?
No, they're intended to point out to you your rhetoric is faulty.

By "all these Euro-posts" do you mean we should shut up since we're not US citizens? (I believe gk may be one, though)

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 11:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, speak up. You're complicit in this anti-Islamic campaign just as we are, or at least some of us. Below is the latest from the US:

New GOP strategy to embrace Islamophobia (shergald)  
Two articles appeared in Alternet this morning arguing that the GOP intends to fully develop Islamophobia as a campaign strategy, and to use Islam and perhaps Muslim-Americans in their next scapegoats.

GOP Fully Intends to Pit Americans Against Each Other Over the Cordoba House

At a certain level, it's still hard to fathom why the Cordoba House is so controversial. A Burlington Coat Factory store closed down; a local religious leader wants to build a community center at the location. This isn't especially interesting....

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) argued today on Fox News that his party, without a policy agenda or substantive ideas about the future, intends to pit Americans against each other over this issue during the campaign season.

http://blogs.alternet.org/spea...

And then,

<b?Gingrich, Bolton, Breitbart Team Up With Far-Right Muslim-Basher Geert Wilders For 9/11 Rally </b>

The right-wing group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) has announced that it will be hosting a rally against the proposed Cordoba House Islamic community center on September 11.

The confirmed list of speakers includes former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Andrew Breitbart, and, notably, the far-right Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. "Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology," Wilders told the Guardian in 2009, "the ideology of a retarded culture."

In the past, Wilders' extremism has been condemned by conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and even Glenn Beck, who called Wilders "fascist." It's a clear sign of how far the Republicans have shifted to the right and embraced Islamophobia as a political tool that movement figures like Gingrich, Bolton, and Breitbart now have no problem sharing a stage with Wilders.

http://blogs.alternet.org/spea...

Palin of course is already part of the act. It is interesting to observe that, except for John Bolton, the Neoconservatives are not on board, yet. Keep tuned in.

You may not recognize all the names, but just think Tony Blair.

by shergald on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
You're complicit in this anti-Islamic campaign
Who is this 'you' you imply I am a member of?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'YOU' all need to convert to Islam and help build some more mosques to prove that you're not racist bigots.
by Lynch on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 01:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for discovering Wilders to us, without you we wouldn't know about him.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, can you take the SOB back. We don't need him in American politics, just as we don't need Sarah Palin in American politics. Did you know that the 20 year old who screwed her daughter is running for mayor of an Alaskan town?

We need help over here and you Euros are doing a thing to lend a hand.

by shergald on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
Did you know that the 20 year old who screwed her daughter is running for mayor of an Alaskan town?
Yes, I am aware of all internet traditions.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 01:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
You may not recognize all the names
ROFL

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and they ate strange food, for another.

So did the Italians. Here is the NYT in an anti-garlic article from 1888. They were terrorists too, as in the 9/16 Wall Street bombing.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And where would Europe be today if it were not for garlic? It's the only reason we have to love Europe and why many Americans go back over there every year, the garlic.

My only problem with it is that I still can't tell whether garlic is used in Irish corned beef and cabbage, which I love, when I can find it.

by shergald on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I strongly recommend you try porchetta. GREAT Italian dish with LOTS of garlic.
by Lynch on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 01:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Americans are against fat, haven't you heard? So tell me what the leanest Italian salami is and I'll look for it.

On the other hand, they keep saying that lean salami is an oxymoron.

by shergald on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 01:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Euro-posts?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shut your mouth, you Euro-poster.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 12:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LMAO

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 01:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
America just has to get over its Islamophobia just as we are starting to get over Black racism

Just...wow.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 01:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet as we speak, more Islamic terrorism.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 09:05:54 PM EST
Apple pie with Obama waffles ... where are we, IHOP?

The good news ... it's only a life sentence. You eventually leave this planet of idiots.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Aug 16th, 2010 at 09:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very strange that we have never heard or hear the phrase 'christian (or catholic or protestant) terrorism' in reference to Northern Ireland bombings and killings, or 'christian terrorism' in the murders of abortion doctors or the bombings of their offices in the US, but we find no difficulty in using the phrase, 'Islamic terrorism' every time a bombing event occurs in the Middle East.

Most of these terrorist acts emanate from followers of the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia (Al Qaeda, Taliban), who strictly adhere to their strict teachings, and who account for less than 1% of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

by shergald on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 09:43:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You said Wahhabi sect? Saudi Arabia? 1%? That's where it stops? What about the Iranians? Or Hamas? Or Hizbollah? Do they all preach 'moderate Islam'?
The problem is that these people (Fahd & Co, the Iranians, ...) are financing the building of mosques throughout the Western world... and financing fanatic Imams who preach hatred and Jihad against the people and governments of the countries they live in.
Why, for one, have the sponsors of the Ground Zero Mosque refused to provide information on who the 'private investors' providing the 100M$ are? I'll tell you why: it's because these 'benevolent donors' are affiliated to radical, anti Western, Jihadist movements.
Are you starting to understand why there is a backlash against Islam in the West?
by Lynch on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 02:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Somebody has got your paranoia going. Read here about Hamas and Hezbollah:

One of America's most critically engaged public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, talks about Israel and its relationship to the U.S. In this interview, he spoke with Kathleen Wells, a political correspondent for Race-Talk, about Israel and its interplay with the United States.

If anyone really believes that the US, now represented by the Obama administration, is interested in Middle East peace, read on and get over your illusions. Chomsky's closing words his interview,

Noam Chomsky: The Real Reasons the U.S. Enables Israeli Crimes and Atrocities (shergald)

....Israel has continued its expansion, by then mostly into the West Bank, and the U.S. was supporting it all the way, and so it continues. So, sure, if Israel continues to settle in the occupied territories -- illegally, incidentally, as Israel recognized in 1967 (it's all illegal; they recognized it) -- it's undermining the possibilities for the viable existence of any small Palestinian entity. And as long as the United States and Israel continue with that, yes, there will be insecurity.

http://www.alternet.org/story/...

And as far as Iran is concerned, I am not familiar with any terrorist activities it has engaged in, are you? Iran, a Shiite country, certainly has no relations with OBL, a Sunni follower. Just because Israel doesn't like Iran doesn't mean that it is a terrorist country. Yet, nobody in the West would like to live in a theocracy. In this regard, you will have to remind us of just what terrorism the Saudis have engaged in.

Who are the real terrorists? Israel and the US, it turns out Read Chomsky for the details.

And adding Hamas and Hezbollah to the totals still will not get you above 1%.

by shergald on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 03:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that these people (Fahd & Co, the Iranians, ...) are financing the building of mosques throughout the Western world... and financing fanatic Imams who preach hatred and Jihad against the people and governments of the countries they live in.
Why, for one, have the sponsors of the Ground Zero Mosque refused to provide information on who the 'private investors' providing the 100M$ are? I'll tell you why: it's because these 'benevolent donors' are affiliated to radical, anti Western, Jihadist movements.
by Lynch on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 03:47:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You made two points, the kinds we get from Neocons in the USA, lacking substantiation.

Proofs are necessary whenever Iran and Israel are discussed and for the most part you may just be repeating Zionist propaganda.


by shergald on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 07:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only $100 million?

During 199-2000 alone AIPAC spent in the region of $40 million influencing directly politicians in Just the US. multiply that by several other countries, and several more years, These actions were similarly not in the wests interest.  So are you going to similarly going to stand up against those radical donors?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 07:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A pittance indeed! The Pentagon's annual budget is 1 200 B$ (nuclear program included) to influence and bully foreign nations. That, of course, explains why the US government should turn a blind eye to radicals seeking to operate in the US.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:12:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, youre intentionally or stupidly missing the point. What makes AIPAC any less radical than the organisation thats building the community centre? and why shouldnt they be considered radical?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 05:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have any actual evidence that Iran is backing jihadists overseas?

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 22nd, 2010 at 06:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For one, 9 of the 11 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

Regarding Saudi Arabia: its regime is a brutal, backward (not to say primitive) theocracy which can be compared to the sociopolitical order that existed in Europe some 1000 years ago. It's a regime which regularly executes people on the public square for various crimes, which chops hands and feet off for theft, which stones for adultery and beheads for rape. It's a regime which uses religious police to control its citizens; police which whips those wearing 'western atire'. If the US or French police whipped women wearing the Muslim veil, you'd call them racist bigots - wouldn't you? Yet you see nothing wrong in Saudi Arabia! How telling of your values. Finally, it's a regime which tolerates nothing but Islam on its land. There are NO churches. NO synagogues. NO temples other than those used to worship Allah. Non Muslims are prohibited from marrying Muslims - unless they convert. And finally, as I said above, the Saudi 'royal family' (Hah) practices Wahhabism and finances religious fanatics (also called Imams) around the world to preach Jihad - as I said in my previous post.

Sadly, many of the characteristics observed in Saudi Arabia can also be seen in other countries run by Islamic theocracies - Iran, Morocco, Egypt, ... etc.

by Lynch on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, many of the characteristics observed in Saudi Arabia can also be seen in other countries run by Islamic theocracies - Iran, Morocco, Egypt, ... etc.

I would laugh if this weren't so sad.

Your claim that Morocco and Egypt are run by Islamic theocracies demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or that you think whoever will read you doesn't know better and will lap up any drivel.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is 'drivel'? The description of Saudi Arabia? You're the one who obviously knows nothing of this region.
Although Egypt's regime is clearly softer than Saudi Arabia's, Islam is clearly at the heart of both society's laws, values and behaviors. You've never been there - have you? Did you know that in Egypt, a non Muslim can't marry a Muslim unless he/she converts?
by Lynch on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That doesn't make it a theocracy.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own experience of Iran, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Kuwait - 25 years ago or more, and thus perhaps irrelevant - is that 'theocracy' was equivalent in cultural importance to 'Conservatism' or 'Socialism'. I.e. it was not how most people in those countries conducted their lives.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 05:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Would you say Christianity is at the heart of European society's laws, values and behaviours? Does that make France a theocracy?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No I wouldn't. Would you?
In fact, as you probably know, religion and the state are officially separated in France.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As you should know there's a difference between:
  1. Freedom of conscience
  2. State secularism
  3. Separation of church and state.

For instance, France and the US both have separation of church and state.  However France does not have freedom of conscience to the extent that the US does while the US is not secular. The Lutheran North of Europe does not have separation of church and state, but they do have secular states and freedom of conscience.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:08:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US, we have something called "blue laws" that in counties that have adopted them, prohibit the purchase of liquor on Sunday mornings or all day Sunday. It is widely known that these laws are pushed by Christian clergy and sects. Why? Possibly there is a fear that parishioners may get drunk and forget to attend services. Or perhaps it's conceived as a blow to the Devil.

But it is still an area where church-state separation faulters.

by shergald on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 08:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
France does not have freedom of conscience to the extent that the US does

Could you explain?

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Scientology is banned. I'm sure many other religions are.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:11:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Scientology is not banned (they have offices in many cities). As an organisation, the French branch of the Church of Scientology has been convicted of organised swindling, Thanks to a loophole in the law, the organisation hasn't been dissolved.

About "many other religions" that you claim are banned in France, could you elaborate?

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:31:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is not "banned". However, it is not recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as a religion, so it does not benefit from various special privileges granted to religions with respect to other forms of organisation.

For example, the "Church" of Scientology has been "persecuted" in France by being billed for taxes, as it made considerable profits, which is incompatible with its status as a registered non-profit association.

I believe it currently operates in France as a company (SARL).

I'm not clear on how this relates to freedom of conscience.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not clear on how this relates to freedom of conscience.

eurogreen:

However, it is not recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as a religion, so it does not benefit from various special privileges granted to religions with respect to other forms of organisation.
It appears the French State is in the business of recognizing and granting various privileges to religions, too? So what does that make of secularity and separation of church and state.

My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 11:14:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well at least Greenspan admitted, finally, that he fucked up on Bush tax policy. Is this an example of freedom of conscience, to say I screwed up?

A lot good it will do us over here, when the costs of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, which caused enormous deficits, will have to be paid for by the middle class. If the right wing Republicans get their way and estend them, of course, the middle class will have to pay even more.


by shergald on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 12:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't the US grant privileges to religious organisations, too? Taxes come to mind.

Migeru:

My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end.

On this we certainly agree. And it's the most important point.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 12:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would disagree. In a theocracy, the concepts of law and religion are one and the same. In modern Western societies (although the Ancient Greeks also based their socio-political order on this principle) the law is built more on the system of philosophical thought. The latter can change basd on social priorities at a given time. The former is immutable.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That may be the funniest set of errors I've read in a long time.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're gonna have to do better than that buddy :)
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 04:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok that's the most utterly ridiculous set of errors he's seen in a long time.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 05:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you capable of AR-TI-CU-LA-TING ?
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 05:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes I am, but don't know as it's really worth my while

I would disagree. In a theocracy, the concepts of law and religion are one and the same.

Thats an extremely narrow view of what a theocracy, Iran by your description does not qualify as a Theocracy (In fact no government in the world qualifies by this standard)

In modern Western societies (although the Ancient Greeks also based their socio-political order on this principle) the law is built more on the system of philosophical thought.

Well your knowledge of Greek government is sadly lacking too (In fact a majority of  ancient Greek city states would qualify more as Theocracies than Iran would) The idea that Modern western government is based on systems of philosophical thought is stretching things extremely. Influenced by yes, but ascribing a secular basis is an amazing reach that should be beyond any honest consideration

The latter can change basd on social priorities at a given time. The former is immutable.

Well that statement avoids any knowledge of history The world changes, so even the most severe Theocracy is going to be faced with changing situations, making Immutability an impossibility.  Theocracies also have  a history of changing as social priorities change, for example,  the marriage of priests in  the Vatican has at times been allowed and not allowed, and has changed in accordance with social changes  inside the church

So Basically on the three major points inside your statement, youre wrong on all of them, badly

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 04:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not only are you arrogant, but you're also ignorant. Those two really don't breed promising offspring when they form a couple.

Regardless... as the issues exposed in this sub-thread merited a more detailed analysis, I took the liberty to publish a diary entitled "On Religion and the Law" which might be insightful to you. In that diary, you and Colman will have ample room (if you so choose) to explain why what I said constitutes the funniest, most utterly ridiculous set of errors you've seen in a long time. Then again, if you opt to respectfully walk away from that discussion, I will certainly understand.

by Lynch on Fri Aug 20th, 2010 at 03:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Id hardly say im Ignorant, or should I ask the university who gave me a degree where I spent a good deal of time studying ancient Greek philosophy and politics for my money back?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Aug 20th, 2010 at 09:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Take the money.

by shergald on Fri Aug 20th, 2010 at 11:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I take it that's a 'NO'
by Lynch on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 01:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is also the issue of conscience clauses. Such privileges are examples of "freedom of conscience."

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think it's specific to religions.  I think it's nonprofits in general.  I may be wrong, though.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 12:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sort of.

Recognised religions have stronger protections under US law due to the 1st Amendment than other nonprofits.

So who recognises religions? Well, that's where it gets funny. I suppose the IRS does. Or the courts, if the religion in question disagrees with the IRS ruling...

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 22nd, 2010 at 06:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, let's see : the fact that some alleged religions are granted special status, and others not, is a freedom of conscience issue? Sounds more like a tax issue to me. Or is that the same thing? Obviously, there's a judgement call involved.

Ad absurdam : can I register my business as a religion? Please?

I agree with your (apparent) point that eliminating all recognition of religion by the state is the only option entirely consistent with secularity. The only real problem with this is how to handle the Catholic real estate.

However, I dispute your larger point that the debate is not very instructive. A real-life example : I take strong issue to the fact that I can not marry a citizen of (for example) Israel or Morocco without converting to the religion into which my potential bride was born (and perhaps not even then). This is an intolerable infringement of human rights, and a consequence of those governments delegating the institution of marriage to religious authorities. I'm sure you'll agree that the citizens of both countries would be objectively better off if this delegation ceased, i.e. if marriage were secularized.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 06:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
Ad absurdam : can I register my business as a religion? Please?
L. Ron Hubbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some documents written by Hubbard himself suggest he regarded Scientology as a business, not a religion. In one letter dated April 10, 1953, he says that calling Scientology a religion solves "a problem of practical business [...] A religion charter could be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick."[111] In a 1962 policy letter, he said that Scientology "is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."[111] However, in his work, Hubbard emphasizes the importance of spirit and mind over the physical body. He says, "... The body can be best studied in such books as Gray's Anatomy and other anatomical texts. This is the province of the medical doctor and, usually, the old-time psychiatrist or psychologist who were involved in the main in body worship."[112]


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 06:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Scientology is banned.

Scientology isn't a religion. It's a Ponzi scam with an expanded vocabulary and a vicious authoritarian streak.

Of course, the same could be said of some parts of the Roman Catholic Church, but Scientology is generally considered to go farther in the mind-rape department (and is a lot more consistent about it).

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 22nd, 2010 at 06:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As you know, the EPP which is the biggest political party in Europe and its French member party the UMP and your President Zarkozy do say such things about Christian roots on occasion. That doesn't make Europe or France a theocracy...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:10:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But describing Egypt as a Theocracy or saying that many of the characteristics of Saudi Arabia exist there are a thing that most Egyptians would be mortally insulted by.I have been there before you start.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 04:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While technically not theocracies, these societies run with Islam at the core. I watched Hosni Mubarak on TV on a number of occasions making speaches to Parliament or the Egyptian people. 'Allah' and 'Islam' were so omnipresent, you'd think he was an Imam.
Regarding Morocco, the royal family claims to descend from Mahomet!
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I watched Hosni Mubarak[insert favourite US President] on TV on a number of occasions making speaches to ParliamentCongress or the EgyptianAmerican people. 'Allah''God' and 'Islam''Faith' were so omnipresent, you'd think he was an Imampreacher.

And your point is? That the US is a theocracy even before Palin becomes President?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a huge difference in the order of magnitude.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right. The United States is a huge country and the world's dominating superpower. Egypt or Moroocco are nothing in comparison.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 03:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding Morocco, the royal family claims to descend from Mahomet!

I believe the Queen of England is so by the Grace of God...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:04:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Worse: the Queen of England is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:07:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True, dat.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 10:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could be describing Israel's attitudes, and laws, pertaining to mixed marriages between Arabs and Jews, or the many laws that describe Jewish-Arab segregation.

And so what does any of this have to do with Islamic terrorism, and groups that sponsor it? Iran likely sponsors and financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah, but that is support of terrorism only if you believe the US State Department, since bought and paid for by Israel.

Just who is keeping who under military occupation and stealing whose lands? Ever hear of state terrorism?

by shergald on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 07:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to be clear, this doesn't imply Israel is a theocracy. It's just full of religious nuts and theocrat wannabees.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 03:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually the term "ethnocracy" has been widely applied to what the Israel government has or is attempting to create in Israel. However, the government's support of extremist religious groups participating in ethnic cleansing in the Palestinian territories does suggest some overlap of the idea of religion and ethnicity.

by shergald on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 08:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
some overlap of the idea of religion and ethnicity in the case of Judaism? You don't say!

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 09:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Iran likely sponsors and financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah

Hezbollah, almost certainly. Hamas, OTOH, I find harder to believe, seeing as they have historical ties with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, neither of which has ever been a bosom buddy with Iran.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 22nd, 2010 at 06:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This guy makes up stuff as he goes along. Well, if you repat lies enough you can always get some people to believe them.

by shergald on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 07:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL. Precisely WHAT am I making up?
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is idiotic for you to come here and attempt to conflate Islam and terrorism or even theocracy and terrorism, especially since many of your statements above imply a total ignorance of the subjects.

by shergald on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 08:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're waffling.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're trolling.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps you could explain?
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikpiedia: Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In Common Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

Now, for Morocco and Egypt.

Morocco: The ruler of this country - Mohammed IV is a proclaimed descendant of the infallible Prophet Mahomet; he retains the ultimate authority to dissolve the legislature, to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. This is NOT anecdotal and is significantly more "theocratic" by nature than governing "By the Grace of God" (and BTW - "govern" the Queen of England does not). Furthermore, Morocco's penal code is rooted in Sharia which is openly promulgated by the Government. Given this, one can effectively argue that Morocco is a form of theocracy.

Egypt: The original text of Article 2 of the 1971 Egyptian Constitution read: 'Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are a principal source of legislation.' On May 22, 1980, the text of Article 2 was changed to read, 'Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are THE principal source of legislation.' The result of this amendment effectively transformed Egypt into a 'constitutional theocracy,' in which no legislation could contravene Islamic legal principles. The widespread existence of official, government-established Sharia courts in Egypt (as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Sudan, Yemen) provide further evidence of the theocratic nature of Egyptian government. That this fact mortally offends some Egyptians changes not the fact that there are similarities between the Egyptian and the Saudi Arabian social orders.

The law being a direct expression of political orientation, one can say that the political system in these two countries subjects its citizens to God's Word Will and Law. That's not theocratic?

by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 12:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You could at least try to get some basic facts right if you're going to post on here.

The current ruler of Morocco is Mohammed VI, not Mohammed IV. E.g. Mohammed VI of Morocco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mohammed VI is generally opposed by Islamist conservatives, and some of his reforms have angered fundamentalists. He also created a new family code, or Mudawana, which granted women more power.[3]

Quite the firebrand theocrat.

As for Egypt - how many allegedly Sharia stonings have there been there recently?

Of course to the nuttier fringes of the neo-con West all Arabic countries are the same by definition, so it's unrealistic to expect to any nuance, experience or local insight.

So far you're doing an excellent job of living down to that assessment.

Did you know that Canada is a theocracy too?

ICL - Canada - Constitution Act 1982

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

So are Germany, Ireland, Australia, and the Bahamas - among others.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 01:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
May I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and change the definition of what a theocracy is by adding: "the characteristic of theocracies is when there are Sharia stonings". You can also add: "Germany, Ireland, Austria and the Bahamas - among others, are theocracies." Don't forget to sign and add your e-mail to the post.
by Lynch on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And what the hell does any of this have to do with Al Qaeda terrorism and 9/11? My inklings tell me that you are pushing Islamophobia, hate for Islam in support of the right wing Zionists and Neocons here in America.

Yet your persistent historical and substantive errors seem to make you totally unqualified to discuss anything in this area. Why don't you give it up?

by shergald on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 02:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why should we do that? I don't think that anyone here believes that?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 05:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh? It's really Rhetoric 101.

Lych: gives Wikipedia's definition of what a theocratic state is - one that is governed by immediate divine guidance... whose officials are regarded as divinely guided... which enacts theonomic laws. It can be argued that this is the case in Egypt given that its constitution stipulates that Sharia (read: infallible, theonomic law) is THE principal source of the country's legislation, and that its executive branch applies this divine legislation through state sponsored Sharia courts.

ThatBritGuy responds by saying: "Egypt can't be a theocracy coz there haven't been any Sahria stonings lately"... and goes on to say that "if this is your definition [it's Wikipedia's, not mine] of what a theocratic state is then Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are also theocratic states"

If ThatBritGuy so firmly believes what he wrote, I suggest he amend Wikipedia to reflect his beliefs, either:
a) by adding something like "theocracies are governed by immediate divine guidance... practicing Sharia stoning" or
b) by leaving the definition as is and adding something like "according to this definition, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are theocratic states" or
c) by enlightening us all with his very own, completely different definition.

For the record - I never said that Saudi Arabia and Egypt (or all Arabic countries for that matter) were the same. What I said was that there were similarities between some of these countries. That, surprisingly, seems to be an indiscernible nuance to some around here who, instead of trying to understand the broader picture of what is being discussed, take the time and energy to point out a typo (IV instead of VI) thinking that it will somehow give more weight to their arguments. Also, I am not what you would refer to as a Neo-Con... nor am I Sarah Palin's admirer. That's such a grossly simplistic way of interpreting our (much more complex) socio-political landscape.

by Lynch on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 01:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 12:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch:
he retains the ultimate authority to dissolve the legislature, to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet.

So he is a monarch with real powers. As commonly the case with monarchs, the position is inherited.

Lynch:

For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.

I.e. if Morocco was a theocracy, their ruler would be appointed (in a real, not just formal way) by the church.

If theocracy is defined as a) a monarch with real powers (absolute or limited by constitution) who b) claims authority by divine will (grace of god, descendant of prophet/god) and c) enacts laws that lends support from religious texts, then most of the world prior to the 20th century would be defined as theocracies. I find such a definition less useful.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 06:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since the Wikipedia entry about theocracy has been mentioned, maybe this further precision could help clarify some disputed notions:

Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

That's what we've been saying haven't we?

Also:

For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government

(my emphasis)

By this definition, the Vatican comes up on top.

by Bernard on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 07:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Furtermore, theocracy is not caesaropapism

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 09:04:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All hail nominalism!

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 09:08:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Amusing examples of French Presidents and powerless Queens aside, what would be comparable to the current Egyptian system is if the (let's say French) Constitution proclaimed Catholic Canon Law as being supreme in the interpretation of civil and penal justice, and if the state financed Catholic Tribunals to administer that Canon Law throughout France. If that were the case, you'd all be screaming that France is an oppressive, freedomless, bigoted theocracy. Of course, you'd have a valid point. And yet at the same time, you're all arguing that Egypt isn't a theocracy and that I'm producing... what was the word? Drivel? Inquisitive indeed, and just so arrogant!

I fail to understand why so many of you go out of your way to defend (or at least ignore) Islam's excesses while at the same time being so quick to denigrate Christianity and the Jews. Instead of criticizing Wahhabist bigotry on ET, we get "Yellow Crescents Armband Alerts". While it's certainly commendable to denounce racism, it's outright dangerous to denounce it in a unilateral manner because doing so will just exacerbate racism on both sides.

by Lynch on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 01:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch:
you go out of your way to defend (or at least ignore) Islam's excesses while at the same time being so quick to denigrate Christianity and the Jews.

Perfect strawman. So, saying that Egypt is not a theocracy means defending Islam's excesses (whatever that means)? We simply don't accept your narrative equating Islam and terrorism, period.

And could you please tell us when we denigrated the Jews? Or Christianity?

FYI, I have lived more than ten years in Arab countries, including Morocco and Saudi Arabia, so I am well aware of the oppression and crimes that are committed in the name of Islam...

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 02:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure we're reading the same thread. Perhaps you could point out where I equate Islam with terrorism.
by Lynch on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 03:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lynch:
he retains the ultimate authority to dissolve the legislature, to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet.

So does the President of the French Republic...

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 06:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and by the way, the President of the French Republic, as the successor of the French kings, is canon of many churches, starting with the The Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran

Les titres de chanoine du président de la République française

Le président de la République française est ainsi, en tant que chef de l'État et successeur des rois de France :
  • premier chanoine de l'Archibasilique de Saint-Jean-du-Latran
  • proto-chanoine de la cathédrale d'Embrun (proto-chanoine : c'est le titre du premier des chanoines, qui a préséance sur tous les autres chanoines)
  • proto-chanoine de Notre-Dame de Cléry
  • chanoine honoraire de la cathédrale de Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne
  • chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers
  • chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin de Tours
  • chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin d'Angers
  • chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin de Chalons


"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 06:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...and let's not forget: co-prince of the principality of Andorra, along with the Bishop of Urgell, Catalonia, Spain
by Bernard on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 07:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Permalink to Chomsky...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 17th, 2010 at 05:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have closed this diary. So shut up. And that goes for you too, Lynch.

by shergald on Fri Aug 20th, 2010 at 04:42:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries