Should theocratic regimes be denied membership and aid from the U.N.?

1. 57

   andrew savageposted 11 years ago

   How much time and energy would the United Nations save if we cut all ties to nations that rule their people under theocracy?
   Should there be a constitutional amendment in the UN that denies the recognition of theocracies, as well as the push to disassemble regimes that are too totalitarian?
   For example: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etcetera.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      
      Upon what grounds is such an amendment to be based?
      

      replyreport
      1. 57

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The grounds started at Ground Zero, 11 September 2001.
         
         Theocracies raised people who came on US soil with the intention to murder civilian populations over what a book and a clergy man told them was the will of their lord.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Andrew. I appreciate your making time to answer my question.
            
            First, this thread ignores all of the reasons why the UN was created and why all global factions need to be represented.
            
            Secondly, there is an underlying tone of fear and misunderstanding of Islam in your reply above. Most Muslims view terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church. There is no such thing as a monolithic Muslim worldview. In fact, wide majorities of Muslims in most countries say they prefer democracy to a “strong leader.” In addition, most Muslims see Islam as compatible with modern society. {1}
            
            It looks like Muslims surveyed worldwide are expressing more tolerance than this thread does.
            
            {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor … -4-charts/

            replyreport
            1. 57

               andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If Islam is a peaceful religion then why are they attacking us and why is there not one single quote from the Quran that says that nonmuslims should be respected like fellow human beings? 
               
               Perhaps there is some fear in these words- but they are not irrational fear (phobia). We are talking about an ideology that has killed thousands of American citizens in the last 12 years. Where is the justice?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Christianity, Judaism and Islam share the complete disregard for infidels/heathens in their holy texts.
                  
                  How many hundreds of thousands of Muslims have Christian armies killed in the last several decades?

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Josak, you are too moderate in the appreciation of the killings if I remember well my history classes, it started with the crusades 1099 (?) since we always showed disrespect to the middle-east, disregarding their right to self-determination. And we went there not for moral reasons "in the name of Christ" but for their wealth. Today, it is the same motto. What gives us the right to intervene in their countries if not irrational fears as Savage underlined very well. So Iran wants to bomb us. Where is the rationale behind this statement if not an emotive fear? If you remember well Savage, since history isn't your forte, in 1945 (end of the war) we bombed innocent civilians in Nagazaki and Hiroshima. That our neighborghs fear us and therefore adopt the nuclear bomb, it is justified. But to make us believe that they are evil and we are angels. You are a joke Savage.

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Fear? Perhaps. Irrational? Not the least bit. When the people kill over three thousand american civilians in the course of hours it is not irrational to feel a sense of fear. In fact Americans are entitled to feel fear- and they are also entitled to rise above it in the course of purging the world of terror.
                        Nonetheless, there is such a thing as irrational tolerance. Such people end up on another end of a political spectrum and are sometimes caught engaging in activities with the enemies of state and typically are executed in any society- civil or savage.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           They are entitled to feel fear, but not to use that as an excuse for bigotry and xenophobia.

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Who said anything about bigotry? Leave the name calling behind. And xenophobia? Please, everyone experiences spells of xenophobia- thanks to low education standards, class disparity and other points of societal distress. This forum is not xenophobic unless of course you choose to believe it is.

                              replyreport
               2. 70

                  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Good evening, Andrew.  Your two part question deserves a two part answer.
                  
                  First, to understand why our country was attacked, you must study our foreign policy for the last 100 years or so. You will find many examples that turned Muslims against the US. You can not blame all of Islam for Muslim extremists any more than you can blame all of Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church. The USA breeds its own strains of people-haters. Currently, there are 1007 hate groups being monitored in this country by The Southern Poverty Law Center. They include neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatist, border vigilantes and others. We own them and they are ours. Collectively, they represent the ugly side of American society
                  
                  Secondly, you ask, “why is there not one single quote from the Qur'an that says that nonmuslims should be respected like fellow human beings?” The answer, I am sorry to say, is because you did not look for one and there are many.
                     
                  “Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. (60:8) {1}
                  
                  “Be kind as Allah has been kind to you.” (28:77). {2}
                  
                  The bottom line, Andrew, the Qur’an does not teach Muslims to disrespect others, be they believers or non-believers. However, you must bear in mind, the Qur’an and the Bible are both similar in the sense that they are subject to interpretation. For every quote, there is another that contradicts it. Both books wield enormous control over huge numbers of people and both books can be used for both good and evil.
                  
                  Peace, Andrew, for one and all.
                  
                  {1} http://www.muslim.org/islam/tolerance.htm
                  {2} http://quran-the-truth.blogspot.com/201 … lamic.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Neither of those quotes prove a point- as neither of them are stating to be kind to non-believers. The first is telling you to be kind to those who fight you not for (over) religion. Klansmen also tell eachother to be kind to one another- that does not mean we must tolerate them.

                     replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      While I despise the idea of theocracies people have the right to be governed as they wish to be governed even if that choice is a theocracy I think we should cut ties with countries that do not have free elections.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The biggest problem with theocracies is that "the people" not only do not get to choose - women are often prevented from voting - so it's not really  "choice."
         
         Under theocratic rule, human rights suffer immensely. Women, gays and adherents of other religions are targets.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Pretty much like the US and UK! Especially gays and adherents of other religions.

            replyreport
      2. 57

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The US and UK do have free elections.

         replyreport
   3. 61

      secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It would be very hard to implement because some major countries like China and Russia need to be a part of the international dialogue, but they are dictatorships or autocratic on some level. It would be almost impossible to clearly define a "dictatorship" for this purpose.
      
      For example, you mentioned Pakistan, but Pakistan is not a dictatorship, it is structured as a democratic system, although extremely corrupt. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons, who knows what might happen if such a country were to be cut off from the world and go rogue.
      
      And then with a country like Saudi Arabia, you have the issue of oil. If S.A. is not a part of the international community, who knows what the consequences would be for oil prices, and therefore for the global economy.
      
      Imagine the time and bureaucratic resources needed to "check up" on a country's democratic status after each election or major civic event. Italy was ruled by the same billionaire, Berlusconi, who also enjoys a media monopoly, for many years. Is that a "democracy" or a "dictatorship"?
      
      And the same problems apply, even more so, in defining what constitutes a theocracy. A "theocracy" is technically defined as "rule by priests." Only Iran actually fits this definition today. Saudi Arabia is ruled by religious extremists (the monarchy), but not religious officials.
      
      I think the best we could do is work to isolate small, inconsequential dictatorial regimes and pressure them in various ways to turn democratic. But large, important countries like Russia and China and even Iran must be a part of the UN or else there is not much point in having it in the first place.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Why do China and Russia NEED to be a part of international dialogue?
         
         On the case of democracy in places like Pakistan; a democracy is only as effective as the education of its people, thus Pakistan is not much of a democracy when the majority of its people are still practicing their version of the Crusades in 2013 CE.
         Thanks for the answer.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Why do China and Russia NEED to be a part of international dialogue?"
            
            Simple, because you can't get anything done without the acquiescence of the great military powers in a region. And with their support, many things are possible. That is fundamentally why the UN includes these regimes, and has included them since its inception. It's not because anybody particularly liked the USSR (Russia's predecessor) or China, but because they understood, from a pragmatic standpoint, you simply could not exclude them.
            
            Try to set up military bases, economic arrangements or political ties in East Asia and see how far you get without the acceptance or support of China. It's realpolitik. The guy with the biggest guns in the neighborhood calls the shots. Just the way it is. You can either work with him (even though you don't like him), or not get anything accomplished.
            
            "a democracy is only as effective as the education of its people, thus Pakistan is not much of a democracy"
            
            I agree with that. But the issue I raised was how do you define, legally, these terms you are using. You have to admit, it's a very grey area.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               As if we were an epitome in democracy. A bipartidism country, electoral college, lobbies... shall I keep on?
               The answer is for Savage not you.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  America is a federation before it is a republic- and republics are never set up as direct democracies with control given directly to the proletarians. There is a very good reason we need an electorial college- some Americans are not bright enough to vote for a good enough candidate. Our constitution was framed by people who understood this. Perhaps someday when people have more proper manners, are capable of holding a conversation without shaming someone else, and have better academic centers- then perhaps we will no longer have a need for an electoral college.

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Neither China nor Russia are theocracies so it wouldn't apply to them anyway.
            
            People also have to remember that the United States is NOT a democracy. We're a constitutional republic based on federalism. Pure democracy is nothing short of mob rule.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Agreed.

               replyreport
      2. 57

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Nations such as SA could always be acquisitioned under UN authority and their resources could be distributed to the world during emergencies. Also- China is a republic while Russia is a federation. And Pakistan is by no stretch of the imagination a democracy. They harbored Osama bin Laden for years and somehow this slipped their mind when speaking before the UN. The world could fare well without such nations.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The fact that Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden does not have anything to do with their political structure. In any case, it is only a segment of the Pakistani political and military regime that is sympathetic to the Islamists. There are other secular and liberal wings of the country as well. But that just goes to show what I mentioned earlier--that it is a very corrupt society.
            
            What on earth makes you think that China is a republic? Because that is what it calls itself, the "People's Republic of China"? It is obviously an oligarchy.
            
            "Nations such as SA could always be acquisitioned under UN authority and their resources could be distributed to the world during emergencies."
            
            Sounds great in theory. But you have clearly not remotely thought through the infinity of legal, political and economic complications that such a scheme would create.

            replyreport
   4. 70

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Howdy Mr. Savage. You have made interesting points here.
      
      Do you mind if I add a couple more theocracies for you to “disassemble” for being too totalitarian?
      
      Surely, you would not overlook Vatican City, an elective monarchy, in which the Pope has absolute authority including total legislative, executive, and judicial power over about 441 million people.
      
      In addition, you must also include the Central Tibetan Administration in exile under the rule of the Dali Lama.
      
      Finally, just to be safe, be sure to examine England, Norway, Israel, and Nepal. They all have governments with theocratic overtones.
      
      I take it you feel a sense of fear from seeing a group of people kill over three thousand civilians in the course of hours.
      
      If you do, then you should be absolutely petrified by the people that did this.
      
      The US government holds the world’s record for killing 60,000 to 80,000 civilians instantly on August 6, 1945.
      
      Tell me, Andrew, which of these events was the more barbaric?
      

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         A perfectly-calculated precision strike against a single building complex vs. a careless bombing of an entire city?
         
         Clearly the former is more barbaric and sloppy. Clearly.

         replyreport
      2. 57

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with your points on which nations are unfortunately theocractic in practice or undertone- and I have no problems with their expulsion from world affairs.

         replyreport
   5. 77

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course you would also then expel the Vatican City and admit the essential evil nature of the Tibetan government in exile.

      replyreport
2. 65

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   Do you know what is a theocracy? If yes how can you refer as examples to the countries cited? The only one that raises doubts is Saudi Arabia but the rest is out of context.
   And too totalitarian according to who?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I apologize for your sentiment to theocracy and Islam. When a country's people embrace a sect that wages a holy war- or a jihad- on non believers, I believe it qualifies as a theocracy.
      
      And of course I understand the meaning of theocracy- if I did not know the word I would not have used it.

      replyreport
3. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   I don't think it is the job of the UN to "save time".  It is their job to engage all nations of the world in constructive dialogue so that international law and human rights can be promoted.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      International law and human rights can be promoted. Start by quarantining those nations responsible for the rise of terrorism- ie; theocractic regimes and sects, then proceed to remove them permanently.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "Start by quarantining those nations responsible for the rise of terrorism"!
         
         Then you would have to start with the US and the UK!!

         replyreport
         1. 57

            andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What terrorist cells are the UK and US responsible for?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Not even terrorist cells but out and out terrorism.
               
               But if you want specifics, the US was heavily involved in the IRA, might even still be.

               replyreport
            2. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If you include tangible support by arms and money--both sides of most Middle Eastern conflicts going back 100 years, including the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, I'm a bit tired of people with short or selective memories and really couldn't be bothered answering more fully.

                  replyreport