How come you chose 4 examples to demonstrate the sameness of the religious interpretations where there is very wide variance, including one example where not only is there a wide variance but your example is directly contrary to their scripture on which it is supposed to be based and one that isn't even true?

A false passport and a Groucho Marx comedy moustache/nose combination no doubt. Though he has a natural one already IIRC.

I did hear shortly after Gaddafi was found that Saif who had also been trying to flee south in a convoy and was completely surrounded by NTC forces..... then nothing more.

That's a dead link for me Kranz by the way....a blank page

Even if all that were true, it's up to the people to decide how they want to live including which system.

Saudi Arabia as an example? Really? Just because our fine Western leaders decide to do business with them, does not make the regime any less oppressive.

Check out the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and check out in which substantial points it differs from other declarations.
1000s of people died, not only in "Western" countries, for rights like universal suffrage or the right to critizise religion.

For most people it is more important in their daily lives to have access to fresh water, than having free elections. However this does not make the struggle for human rights less important.
This is not about respect for different cultures, but about very basic rights. Are muslims other human beings who are thus not eligible to the universal, basic human rights? No, Sir, this is Western arrogance at it's best, to imply that these people do not need or want the freedom they are entitled to by birth.

If people decide to live like slaves on their own, free will, it is their problem, but no state has the right to abridge rights of the ones who don't want to live like this.

Isn't it funny that in other current topics "westerners" are complaining about criticizing religion and the existance of universal suffrage.

I propose a close 3rd

USA

Of course it is :DL, not only on subsim, also in my country.
Living in a country with relative freedom does not make you a better person, nor someone who appeciates the freedom of others.
And it is always easier for the rulers to control a population that is uneducated, with as few rights as possible, that's another reason why freedoms have to be defended constantly.

There is some difference between taking rights as a starting point and allowing some exceptions due to freedom of religion.

1. I mainly posted Saudi Arabia as an example because: 1, The western world, more specifically the U.S, do business them and maintain a large interest in their oil reserves and 2nd, they are a nation guided by Islamic laws. If countries guided by Islam are "bad" and need to be taken down and have Democracy set in place why not do this with the Saudis? Oh wait...

2. I totally agree with you that people should have their basic human rights protected. But that does not mean that, in our "Western arrogance" we can shove our own concept of it on other people. For some, having fresh water, food and a home is enough. If an Islamic guided nation/government is enough to supply them with that, then why should anyone intervene?

Another interesting point that I think raises some interesting questions, if you abolish a theocratic nation, where do you draw the line between how much power religion should have in a persons life?

I never said that it was "good" in the Western sense of a "good" governing system, I'm merely saying that just because a country, or revolution is deciding to guide its principles off of a religion, be it Islam, Christian, Jewish or any other, does not make it immediately "bad".

Going by your examples, we have two polar opposites. If we don't allow people the choice to choose their government style, how can we tell if Theocracy is "bad"?

The basic and main difference is that in such nations it can be openly debated........while allowing religion to be practiced.

What I'm speaking of is, if religion is unfit to guide a nation how can it be fit to guide a person?

What's truth again? :hmmm:

CNN may not be truth, but it sure ain't a poorly-made youtube video of out-of-context quotes either...

Lol. :yeah:
Head, Nail, The, On, Hit.

Yes, I always trust that a video which writes truth in capital letters will enlighten me.
Using semi-fascist Farrakhan as their spokesperson does not raise my interest. A quick check at the video makers YT-page: a truther, wow, who would have thought this. The first link in his friends list (alivera3), leads to a vid about the "Zionist Murder Of Muammar Gaddafi". Yay, there we have it!

Just because any moron, who still lives in mommy's basement at 40, has the technical equipment to make a video, does not mean that he should. People like this are resistant to any arguments, live in their own little world and can eat my dingleberries.

Unfortunaltely there's an awful lot of people who swallow this kind of stuff down as fact....

A global ban on all Numpties would solve the problem.

Germany also made a tank deal with SA recently. :shifty:
That some non-democratic countries are "bad", some are "good" is not only valid for religious countries: just take a look how the US regards Cuba (badbadbad) vs China (we print our flag stickers there)

The intervention question is a tough one, I wish there were some clear answers and we'd had a working UNO. Till then, we can only see that in the case of Libya the Security Council decidedv to intervene, also with the votes of muslim countries btw.

And I see that a islamic-based law shoves their believe system on all the countries inhabitants. For example in the case of Tunesia, the islamists may have gotten a majority, however a democracy is not mob rule. In a working democratic system the rights of the people who did not vote for them must also be respected - and this is the right to believe or not whatever you want, aka freedom of religion.

There is also the point that while some people are happy when their basic needs are fulfilled, others would also like a working jurisdiction that does not allow to randomly take away your shelter and give your house to privileged members of the ruling party.
And, as previously stated, I can not see how minority rights are protected in a theocracy.

The power that each individual allows religion to have over his own life. The interesting aspect of religion is that religion is always an individual thing, however people regard it as some kind of collective belief system.
Any religion has its sub-sections, shiites, baptists, hasedi, etc, etc. So who is right? Even among believers of the same sect, are massive, fundamental differences in certain questions.

Most of you, good sirs, remind me of that padishah Shaddam IV supporters, when he landed on Dune and slain Duke Leto.

NATO has no right to invade a sovereign state, steal their resources and kill their leader.

Period.

Stop posting your human right bull****. Every credible person on Earth perfectly understands that fact that US puppets never cared much about people rights.

Read 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 once again... once fiction, now this became our reality.

Can I play the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen? :DL

Just gotta buy a gallon of accutane first.

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/Ac...11732-5459.gif

The only fiction around here is the one you just put forth. Invade a sovereign state, steal their resources and kill their leader? When did we do that?

Afghanistan? Yea we really are stealing all the opium, arent we? Iraq? Funny - our gas and oil prices are higher now than they were before the Iraq war - must not be stealing that either.

Libya? We don't have anyone there to do the "stealing".

Egypt? Same as Libya.

Any other baseless claims you need me to shoot down for ya?