| Krauter |
10-26-11 08:25 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin
(Post 1774693)
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)
|
Very true. In my opinion, the idea of how "good" or "bad" a country is depends wholly on its citizens. If the citizens are happy, then I can honestly say that I don't think a country is bad. For example, (just an example...) all Cubans that I have met say that they are honestly happy with their country and how it is run. Now I can say I've never been to Cuba, but this is just some Cubans that I have met visiting here for training camps or tournaments, etc.
Quote:
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.
|
I don't doubt that the UN did a good job in Libya, both in waiting for the rebels to ask for UN aid, as well as the fact that there were no boots on the ground. In my view, this is how the UN Security forces should act.
Quote:
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.
|
To me, this is simply a question of who is in charge. If you have hardline religious leaders, then you're going to have hardline religious laws. It all depends on the leaders and how they run the country...
Quote:
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.
|
Excellent point.
Quote:
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.
|
And therein lies the problem, in my view, of a theocratically lead nation. You can't have on single ruler because there is always going to be strife between the different religious sects. In my opinion, something similar to a council, with multiple representatives, each representing different religious sects present within the country would be better suited to govern a theocratic nation rather than one single figurehead. |
