Muslims Against Terrorism

[Skeptic]

Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

In an European campus? Puh-leaaase. Europe, with a growing--and increasingly violent and radical--muslim population will do anything whatsoever to keep them quiet. There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous "liberals".

It happened in Teheran. Yes, THAT Teheran--the capital of Iran. And, yes, the students are, of course, muslims. And, yes, with all probability observant ones as well.

Why?

Well, it stands to reason, when you think about it. While the students in the west are busy with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ courses that promote "muticulturalism" and the idea that all cultures--whether a mideaval islamic theocracy or a modern democracy--are all "equal" and anybody that disagrees is a "racist", the students in Teheran know very well what life in a strict Islamic state REALLY means.

These students probably don't have too much love to israel or the US. I doubt they'd shed a tear if israel is destroyed. However, they know very well that ISLAMIC FANTACISM DOESN'T WORK.

The moment you have an islamically-ruled country, that is the end of democracy, freedom of speech, women's rights, and numerous other freedoms, and on the other hand you have enormous military expeditures to establish religious compliance at home and export islam, through terrorism, abroad. There is no research, no decent government, no non-corrupt officials, and very often no clean water or electricity. Sure, you can blame all that on a jewish conspiracy and/or american hegamony and/or some other enemy du jour, but that doesn't change reality.

(I am reminded of a funny incident from the People's Reublic of Berkeley, CA. In the 1980s, most of the city council's meetings time dealt, of course, with international politics. One day, the city council was dealing in all seriously with the issue--so relevant to the residents of Berkeley--of what, if any, should the liberal, enlightened, modern position that Berkeley should officially take about the situation in the middle east. When the chair asked if there are any questions, a woman stood up and said that this is all very nice, but why hasn't the city fixed the broken lamppost in front of her house for the last three months? This was met with loud cheering from the croud.)

The events in Iran make me hope that, after all, the west will not only win, but that victory is inevitable. israel might be destroyed in the meantime (replaced with the usual outcome of such "liberation of the muslims"--namely, butchery and expulsion of all non-muslims); more bombs will hit New York; but, in the end, it will win for the same reason it won against communism: nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country, and everybody wants to live in the west.

 

[Ben Shniper]

Bless the freedom seekers of Iran. If they can build a democracy, may it BE better than America and Israel.

-Ben

 

[Skeptic]

Bless the freedom seekers of Iran. If they can build a democracy, may it BE better than America and Israel.

-Ben

Actually, historically speaking, the Persians (or as they are now known, the Iranians) were certainly the most advanced people, politically and socially, in the region. Humeini and his thugs are--historically--an aberration, an exception, not the rule.

Of course, you cannot demand a better proof of the futility of Islamic fundamentalism than this. But the left, with its "multiculturalism" mantra, will not listen. After all, they still have marxists...

 

[susheel]

I was in Iran some years back and as Islamic countries go it isn't too bad. I am familiar with Saudi and I can tell you Iran is any day better than Saudi.

True the Islamic strictures exist, but it is a country that is trying to build an Islamic country that works. I have seen women in Iran isn high posts, walk the streets alone at night and on a more mundane level some of their movies have been great. Compare this to the situation of America's great friend, Saudi Arabia.

There was a great deal of bad press for Iran, immediately after the revolution. The Shah was a tyrant, no question about it. But he had American support. The other governments of the middle-east were getting fidgety about a popular revolt against the god given authority of the monarchy. Besides which Iran is shiite while other countries are Sunni.

There is a progressive movement in Iran, I think one needs to give it time. I foresee it growing as the only sensible Islamic nation in the wolrd. Shiite Islam is historically a progressive movement.

 

[Lazarus]

Where does Muslim's Against Terrorism fit or fits into this thread?

If this concerns the organization, then try here; http://www.matusa.org/flash.html

Skeptic, I was unable to find any other reference in your post that even infers that any Muslim may be against terrorism. As a matter of fact, you seemed to have painted a fairly hostile image that acts as a blanket condemnation of any person or institution that may feel that there is some merit in the claims of the Palestinians, or the the Muslim world as a whole.

Posted by Skeptic
In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction.

Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people. If the students went beyond these simple claims, then, they deserve to be derided. Please, could you post your sources on the claims that this student organization is calling for the murder of Jewish people or the destruction of Israel?

No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

Please, enlighten me. What are the premises for this argument?

There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous "liberals".

Again, I am perplexed. I did not know that our European allies were dedicated to Israel's destruction. I thought several to be onboard with the US in support of the Israeli gov't. Again, could you, please, direct me to your sources? I am deeply concerned.

The moment you have an islamically-ruled country, that is the end of democracy, freedom of speech, women's rights, and numerous other freedoms, and on the other hand you have enormous military expeditures to establish religious compliance at home and export islam, through terrorism, abroad.

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?

it will win for the same reason it won against communism: nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country, and everybody wants to live in the west.

Well, I apologize for my ignorance. I thought that communism in Eastern Europe and Western Asia fell due to terrible economic decisions, corruption, an opening of world trade and communications, and being outspent by the West. I've been wrong before. Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy. Those that want to live in the west, I think, would prefer to live in their own nation, if they were free of the threat of repression, and experience a healthy economy.

Actually, I don't mean to be harsh, but I felt that I read a rant full of hysteria and paranoia. Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy, whether it is Muslim or Jewish, (and especially an American Christian theocracy), nor do I seek the destruction of any nation. At the same time, voicing my opposition to the policies of a nation that we support is my right as an American citizen, and that does not make me less of a patriot. It doesn't even make me a liberal! It just makes me an American...

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lazarus:

Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people.

Problem: Basic rights to democracy and respect for private property are rather attenuated in the Muslim-Arabic world. If one was really concerned that these were to be extended to Palestinians then the most logical course of action to support would be the formal annexation of the occupied territories by Israel.

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?

I'm sure it would, if only I could think of any non-Islamic theocracies. There aren't any Christian ones. Tibet was a Buddhist theocracy, and IIRC Bhutan still is.

I've been wrong before. Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy. Those that want to live in the west, I think, would prefer to live in their own nation, if they were free of the threat of repression, and experience a healthy economy.

He wasn't talking about the fundies, just the common folk. Remember that shipload of Afghans trying to gain admittance to Australia?

Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy, whether it is Muslim or Jewish, (and especially an American Christian theocracy), nor do I seek the destruction of any nation.

And when was an American Christian theocracy ever a viable concept? In a nation that's 25% Catholic, has a large number of adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as a myriad of Protestant sects that are often at odds with each other on theological points?

I take it that you support China's occupation of Tibet, since the alternative is a Buddhist theocracy?

 

[Lazarus]

Posted by Shane Costello
I take it that you support China's occupation of Tibet, since the alternative is a Buddhist theocracy?

This last line seems to sum up your entire point throughout your post. This is no different than saying during the second world war, "If you don't support communist Russia, then you must support nazi Germany." It is not rational, nor logical.

Problem: Basic rights to democracy and respect for private property are rather attenuated in the Muslim-Arabic world. If one was really concerned that these were to be extended to Palestinians then the most logical course of action to support would be the formal annexation of the occupied territories by Israel.

First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms? I did not know that any people other than Jewish citizens of Israel had the right to vote in national elections. I may be mistaken, but I doubt it. Plus, I thought there was a different level of proof needed to prevent public annexation of private property depending on your citizenship throughout Israel. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I would love for someone with knowledge of Israeli law to weigh in on this one with references.

I'm sure it would, if only I could think of any non-Islamic theocracies. There aren't any Christian ones. Tibet was a Buddhist theocracy, and IIRC Bhutan still is.

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy. Then, there used to be plenty of Christian theocracies. And, do you have a real point to this? My point was that I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them. I think that was apparent, but I will try to be more precise next time.

He wasn't talking about the fundies, just the common folk.

Oh, sorry. I thought he said, "nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country." I thought that was fairly inclusive. But, like I said before, I've been wrong before. So, I'll give you that one. He was talking about everyone but the fundies.

And when was an American Christian theocracy ever a viable concept?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe those non-Mormons living in Salt Lake City are complaining for nothing.

In a nation that's 25% Catholic, has a large number of adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as a myriad of Protestant sects that are often at odds with each other on theological points?

Hmm, so, are you insinuating that coallition Christian gov'ts are not possible? I find that they have many issues in coomon. Plus, have you noticed the drives lately to remove the teaching of evolution from our public schools, and its replacement by religious doctrine? Have you noticed all of the web-sites advocating the concept of a USA based in Christian law, and history? Have you noticed the drive to put religious icons of only one faith into the public sphere, or to at least have many returned? Have you missed the spurt of religious support in recent legislation?

Look, man, I was not saying that the concept of an American Christian theocracy was viable. We're too much of a plutarchy for that. I was saying that I would not support such a thing, and infering that there is a rather vocal group the supports this idea.

Let me try one more time for those who are blinded by their own prejudices. Support for human rights for all people, is not a call for the limiting of human rights for some people. Too many people are too quick to impose their personal prejudices on others, and to stereotype those that aren't just like them. And, these people are not just Muslims or Jews, or Buddhists or Christians, or even Atheists. I'm all for finding ways to recognize the inherent value of all people, and not to perpetuate the status quo of choosing sides.

Yes, we do need to control those people that will threaten our society, but this is not an excuse for not understanding or considering the motivations of those people. Without knowing the motivations, and understanding the best routes to acheive our goals, the problems we face now will not go away. And, this is what we are not doing. The world does not necessarily share our belief system, and to expect them to see the light of our personal glory is naive.

 

[Skeptic]

Where does Muslim's Against Terrorism fit or fits into this thread?

Er... due to the fact that I was describing a group of muslims who were against terrorism?

Skeptic, I was unable to find any other reference in your post that even infers that any Muslim may be against terrorism.

If I said that Martin Luther King Jr. was a great guy, would you complain that I "had not anywhere in your post is it even inferred that other black people might be great guys"?

You can't win with some people...
Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people.

Huh? The whole point of my statements is that these students in Iran are AGAINST such murder. What the hell does "legally deeded land" have to do with these students, I cannot imagine.

Please, could you post your sources on the claims that this student organization is calling for the murder of Jewish people or the destruction of Israel?

Huh? I didn't say they do that. In fact, I said they were saying the exact opposite!

As for why this is noteworthy--why we would EXPECT the students to call for israel's destruction and the murder of the jews--that is because this is Iran's official position since Humeini came to power, and it very often used students to demonstrate and make these claims. The american embassy hostages, for example, were originally retained from leaving by students that surrounded the embassy calling for their death.

Again, I am perplexed. I did not know that our European allies were dedicated to Israel's destruction.

We can start with the French ambassador to London, who declared he cannot see why the "◊◊◊◊◊◊ little country, israel" should exist and that its existence is "a theat to world peace". We can continue with the hypocritical european reaction which instantly condemn israel for every military action it takes, but says nothing at all when jews are killed. Or the huge increase in attacks against jews in europe in the last two years. Or the nobel prize committee's attempt to strip from the Nobel peace prize--not Arafat who started the war, but Peres, who believed he is for peace. Or the numerous, continous, and unrelenting "academic discussions" in european universities that "prove" israel must be destroyed for the sake of justice, peace, mom and apple pie.

But, above all, we can start with europe's continual support for the palestinian "rights", including the "right" or return, which--according to the palestinians themselves--is the critical stage in israel's destruction.

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam,

Since there is no such thing, there is no need to discuss it. Can you name one such government? And, no fair saying England just becasue the Queen, the nominal ruler, is also the head of the Anglican Church...

Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy.

Wrong. One of the most important traits of fundamentalism is that, by its very nature, it not only wants to live in a theocracy, but wants to force everybody else to do the same. Somehow, Muhammad Atta was not "Satisfied to live in his own theocracy" but considered turning the US into one is essential.

 

[LucienVanImpe]

First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms? I did not know that any people other than Jewish citizens of Israel had the right to vote in national elections. I may be mistaken, but I doubt it.

You are mistaken - as anyone with even the scantest knowledge of Israel should be able to inform you.

Full voting rights are granted to Arabs in Israel. They are also allowed to hold public office. In fact, approximately one tenth of Knesset members are Arabs, and they can even attend a mosque which is an integrated part of the Knesset building complex.

Muslims make up around 85 percent of the 1.1 million Arabs in Israel, and they enjoy the exact same rights as everyone else - except that they are exempt from army service.

 

[Shane Costello]

originally posted by Lazarus:

This last line seems to sum up your entire point throughout your post. This is no different than saying during the second world war, "If you don't support communist Russia, then you must support nazi Germany." It is not rational, nor logical.

You said "Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy....." , not me. If you do not support any theocracy, then you cannot by your own definition support the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

Hmm, so, are you insinuating that coallition Christian gov'ts are not possible? I find that they have many issues in coomon. Plus, have you noticed the drives lately to remove the teaching of evolution from our public schools, and its replacement by religious doctrine? Have you noticed all of the web-sites advocating the concept of a USA based in Christian law, and history? Have you noticed the drive to put religious icons of only one faith into the public sphere, or to at least have many returned? Have you missed the spurt of religious support in recent legislation?

I've also noticed the fact that the US has a constitution that's unambiguous on the subject of church-state separation. Is there any issue of the Christian Right's agenda that has come to fruition? Is Christian prayer now permitted in state schools?

Many issues in common? Why then is evolution thought in Catholic schools, and the ones controlled by the more enlightened Protestant denominations?

Since a theocracy entails the beliefs of one religion being enshrined in law then the religiious diversity of the US makes the concept of theocracy unviable.

First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms?

Yes. In fact the only Arabs in the Middle East to enjoy these freedoms are those living in Israel.

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy.

Do you know what a theocracy actually is? It's a society ruled by religious clerics or on the principles of a single religion. Democratic theocracy is an oxymoron.

Then, there used to be plenty of Christian theocracies. And, do you have a real point to this?

The past tense. There used to be Christian theocracies. There aren't any more (unless you want to include the Vatican City). You said "Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?". I'm pointing out that there aren't any other theocracies worth talking about other than Islamic ones.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe those non-Mormons living in Salt Lake City are complaining for nothing.

Maybe they are, since a Mormon theocracy in Utah would be unconstitutional.

Let me try one more time for those who are blinded by their own prejudices.

A hefty challenge for someone blinded by their own ignorance.

Support for human rights for all people, is not a call for the limiting of human rights for some people. Too many people are too quick to impose their personal prejudices on others, and to stereotype those that aren't just like them

Like totalitarian Muslim theocracies?

 

[demon]

Lucien Vanlmpe "You are mistaken - as anyone with even the scantest knowledge of Israel should be able to inform you.

Full voting rights are granted to Arabs in Israel. They are also allowed to hold public office. In fact, approximately one tenth of Knesset members are Arabs, and they can even attend a mosque which is an integrated part of the Knesset building complex.

Muslims make up around 85 percent of the 1.1 million Arabs in Israel, and they enjoy the exact same rights as everyone else - except that they are exempt from army service."

What planet are you from?

 

[demon]

L

 

[LucienVanImpe]

What planet are you from?

Am I supposed to discern some kind of meaning from this question, any particular reason why you wish to share your profound bewilderment with the board on this special occasion?

If so, I would suggest that you convey a little more information relating to your confusion. If not, I might advice you to brush up on your inventory of insults. Granting me extra-terrestrial status because you object to the content of my post seems somewhat juvenile.

Thanks.

 

[demon]

I suggest you brush up on your own scant knowledge of "democracy" in Israel and spend less time swallowing dictionaries.

 

[digitalmcq]

Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

Can you show me some evidence of any of these individuals/groups calling for 'israel's destruction'? How 'bout evidence of 'rabid antisemitism'? Maybe you can tell me what groups are rallying for "palestinian rights ... to kill jews" (and provide evidence that they do so).

Direct quotes from the works of these individuals and groups will suffice.

 

[LucienVanImpe]

I suggest you brush up on your own scant knowledge of "democracy" in Israel and spend less time swallowing dictionaries.

More vagueness. If there is any particular point you disagree with, then please speak out instead of blaming me for writing something which apparently conflicts with your view of Israel.

 

[Lazarus]

Let me begin by addressing both LucienVanImpe and demon, you are both correct. My original confusion came about by an improper understanding of the Palestinian argument with a section of the 1992 Law of Party, and in the fact that the Knesset elects the Prime Minister. While I knew that Palestinians were elected to the Knesset, my apprehensions were in the area of qualifications to vote. Here is one of the passages from The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights & the Environment;

Political participation: Palestinians political participation inside Israel is expressly conditional upon the acceptance of the Jewish Exclusivity of the State. These pre conditions are expressed explicitly in the 1992 Law of Political Party, and in particular, the amendment of Section 7A(1) of the Basic law: the Knesset, which prevents candidates from participation if their platform suggests ““expressly or by implication,… (1) denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people”

This was my mistake, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I am waiting on more information concerning this Palestinian argument.

You said "Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy....." , not me. If you do not support any theocracy, then you cannot by your own definition support the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

Please, Shane, stop trying to saddle me with your illogical arguments. Withholding support for one ideology does not infer support for another. I will grant you that I would prefer the rule of the Dalai Lama over the rule of a totalitarian state such as China, but this does not mean that I support theocracy. Please, do not assume positions that I do not state. If there is a question of my opinions, please, feel free to ask, and I will happily grant you the same consideration.

Do you know what a theocracy actually is? It's a society ruled by religious clerics or on the principles of a single religion. Democratic theocracy is an oxymoron.

This is a very interesting definition of theocracy. however, it is a bit exclusive. You may like to investigate this matter further, and include all of the various definitions offered. It is misleading to choose one portion of one possible definition to make an effective argument. Furthermore, if you are suggesting that one political ideology such as theocracy cannot exist in some form in coallition with another, I respectfully, ask for some support of this argument.

I'm pointing out that there aren't any other theocracies worth talking about other than Islamic ones.

Again, Shane, are you finding context difficult? I said that I didn't care about what religion a theocracy may be based on. I said, "I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them."

Maybe they are, since a Mormon theocracy in Utah would be unconstitutional.

Respectfully, does the constitutionality of something determine its existence? You may or may not agree, but here is some history of the founding of the LDS church, and some modern takes. The choice to give these reports credence is yours. Plus, it is not difficult to find non-Mormon people complaining of the Church-State role in Utah. A simple web search would suffice. Anyway, here's some links;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0104.mencimer.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0104.mencimer.html
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon041.htm

A hefty challenge for someone blinded by their own ignorance.

If you took my statement concerning prejudice as an ad hominen attack on you personally. I apologize for that. That was not my intent. If you wish to infer that I am ignorant, then that is your right. I only ask that if you are going to attempt to argue my opinions, please, stay in context, and attempt to argue my conclusions, not my questions.

Finally, Israel is a democratic state with freedom of worship, but it is also a Jewish state. Israeli state institutions are replete with Jewish symbols and ideology. Israel makes no argument that it was founded as a Jewish state. There are many laws written explicitly to favor Jewish people. Please, read this US Department of State human rights report;
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/794.htm
And, please, understand that I do not hold either side in this conflict to a higher lever of responsibility. A principal point I've been trying to make from the beginning is that we cannot make all the right decisions without knowledge of the motivations of all of those people involved.

 

[Lazarus]

Posted by Skeptic
Huh? I didn't say they do that. In fact, I said they were saying the exact opposite!

Well, I'm sorry if I did not understand your post, but I read the followng;

In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction.

This sounds to me like you said that Berkeley students rallied for Palestinian rights to kill Jewish people, and that thay called for the destruction of Israel. I only asked for references for ths claim. Admittedly, this sentence, among a few others, helped to set the tone for how I read the rest of your post. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I am sorry, and would enjoy reading a more precise characterization of your opinions.

And, yes, our French allies may not be in support of the state of Israel, but I did not say that all of our allies support the Israeli state. For instance, Great Brittain voices support for Israel. There are different levels of support among our allies. Furthermore, I would appreciate some verification that the French gov't supports the destruction of Israel. Afterall, you did say that, "There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous 'liberals'." This is in a paragraph that began with the subject of European nations. And, later you added the French anology. Was the intent here that liberals demand Israel's destruction, or that European liberals demand Israel's destruction? I would appreciate clarification, and corroboration of this claim. All I ask for is whether your remarks are speculative, or authorative, and evidence to support authority.

 

[a_unique_person]

Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

finished with the strawmen yet?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lazarus:

This is a very interesting definition of theocracy. however, it is a bit exclusive.

It's the only definition of theocracy!

Theocracy: n (pl theocracies) (a state having)government by a deity or priesthood.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that one political ideology such as theocracy cannot exist in some form in coallition with another, I respectfully, ask for some support of this argument.

Not before you name all the other non-muslim theocracies you claim to be in existence.

How easy is it to order a budweiser in Iran then?

Again, Shane, are you finding context difficult? I said that I didn't care about what religion a theocracy may be based on. I said, "I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them."

Huh? I pointed out that theocracies exist in an significant number only in Muslim countries. What are you talking about?

Respectfully, does the constitutionality of something determine its existence? You may or may not agree, but here is some history of the founding of the LDS church, and some modern takes. The choice to give these reports credence is yours. Plus, it is not difficult to find non-Mormon people complaining of the Church-State role in Utah. A simple web search would suffice. Anyway, here's some links;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...4.mencimer.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...4.mencimer.html
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon041.htm

Is it surprising that in a state where 70% of the population is Mormon that the LDS would have an influence. Likewise here in Ireland 90% od the population is Catholic, and societal mores reflect that. To suggest that either place is a theocracy is nonsense. Take Utah:

Not everyone in Salt Lake was thrilled with the Mormons' "little piece of Paris." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the First Unitarian Church sued the city, arguing that the deal gave the "indelible impression that the LDS church occupies a privileged position in the community" and blurred constitutional distinctions between church and state. So far, though, they haven't made much headway. But what did they expect? The federal judge hearing the case was a Mormon, hand-picked by fellow church-member Sen. Orrin Hatch
So the LDS are subject to the rigours of the law, and do not occupy a privileged legal position. Utah couldn't be a theocracy in that case.

The Utah ACLU is a busy chapter, and much hated for such things as its regular letters to small-town mayors reminding them that it is illegal to prohibit city recreational activities on Monday nights just because that's when Mormons are required to have "family home evening."
So the ACLU has a chapter in Utah, even though it appears to be at constant loggerheads with the LDS. How well are civil liberties groups tolerated in actual theocracies such as Iran?

If you took my statement concerning prejudice as an ad hominen attack on you personally. I apologize for that. That was not my intent. If you wish to infer that I am ignorant, then that is your right. I only ask that if you are going to attempt to argue my opinions, please, stay in context, and attempt to argue my conclusions, not my questions.

No problem.