Here's why we should not have a theocracy:
Everyone's probably heard of the poor school teacher in Somalia who was jailed because she allowed the children in one of her classes to call a teddy bear Mohammed.
Well, Santa Claus apparently is just as off limits.
See article below:
etailer Selling Not-So-Merry Santa Shirt
Reporting
Chris May
PHILADELPHIA (CBS 3) ―
A t-shirt featuring a holiday icon making an obscene gesture has led to another clothing controversy at "Urban Outfitters" stores.
St. Nick is typically depicted as a jolly man in a bright red suit, but he is depicted in a much different light on a black t-shirt being sold at Urban Outfitters.
The shirt is emblazoned with the words, "Santa Claus Hates You," and St. Nick posing an obscene hand gesture.
"It is Santa putting up his middle finger," one shopper described.
The $28 shirt is among the latest offerings from Philadelphia-based Urban Outfitters.
While it is out of stock at the chain's Center City location, shoppers out looking for Christmas gifts said it is also out of bounds.
"Oh no, that's definitely too negative of a shirt, that just takes away from the holiday spirit," added another Philadelphia shopper.
Urban Outfitters is no stranger to controversial goods.
In 2004, its board game "Ghettopoloy" angered some community leaders.
The company faced boycott calls last year for marketing a Christmas tree ornament called the "Glittering Gun."
The company said the ornament was discontinued this past November, citing the on-going crisis of violence in Philadelphia.
Wildly popular among young people, Urban Outfitters is known for pushing buttons, especially with its t-shirts.
CBS 3 Reporter Chris May spoke with Urban Outfitters by phone, who were unable to disclose whether they had received any complaints about the "Santa Claus Hates You" shirt. They were unwilling to offer any additional comment.
Santa Claus and Mohammed the Teddy Bear
Moderator: Moderators
-
spiritletter
- Apprentice
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:44 pm
-
spiritletter
- Apprentice
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:44 pm
Post #3
I still have to ask...
... Is htis evidence that all theocracis woudl automaticllay be brutal dictatorships?
I know the old claim, it sbeen on this baord, "All theocracies that exist nowadays are tyrannies". Well, not only is SUdan not acutlaly a Theocracy, but ht eonly Theocracy in the world that actulaly exists is not a Tyrannical Dictatorship.
The Vatican City-State.
Why do you asusme Sudan represents Theocracy?
Why do you asusme that all Theocracies must be oppressive?
Its just absurd.
... Is htis evidence that all theocracis woudl automaticllay be brutal dictatorships?
I know the old claim, it sbeen on this baord, "All theocracies that exist nowadays are tyrannies". Well, not only is SUdan not acutlaly a Theocracy, but ht eonly Theocracy in the world that actulaly exists is not a Tyrannical Dictatorship.
The Vatican City-State.
Why do you asusme Sudan represents Theocracy?
Why do you asusme that all Theocracies must be oppressive?
Its just absurd.
-
spiritletter
- Apprentice
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:44 pm
Post #4
First, let me clarify a semantic. A theocracy, in its present political usage, is not a state administered by God; it is a state administered by religious authority. So, in my definition, God is not running things. A bunch of Mullahs, etc., are running things, and their acts are less than Godly.
Second, Vatican City is a kind of fantasy kingdom that exists under the protection of the Italian state, and does not have to interact with the rest of the world in any meaningful way; therefore, it is not tested daily against the world's real problems.
Finally, I am anti-utopian. I am anti-utopian because human beings are vastly imperfect, and are always in a condition of aspiring toward the perfect. If we were perfect, we'd be dead, or in some kind of not yet named transcendental condition.
All previous utopias, theocratic or otherwise, have ended in Tyranny. There are no exceptions in the present world. Even the Buddhists in Shri Lanka have become repressive.
Second, Vatican City is a kind of fantasy kingdom that exists under the protection of the Italian state, and does not have to interact with the rest of the world in any meaningful way; therefore, it is not tested daily against the world's real problems.
Finally, I am anti-utopian. I am anti-utopian because human beings are vastly imperfect, and are always in a condition of aspiring toward the perfect. If we were perfect, we'd be dead, or in some kind of not yet named transcendental condition.
All previous utopias, theocratic or otherwise, have ended in Tyranny. There are no exceptions in the present world. Even the Buddhists in Shri Lanka have become repressive.
Post #5
First, let me clarify a semantic. A theocracy, in its present political usage, is not a state administered by God; it is a state administered by religious authority.
This is a wrong deifnition. Even if it is commonly used, it is still wrong.
So, in my definition,
O I do love hwo everythign si so personal...
God is not running things. A bunch of Mullahs, etc., are running things, and their acts are less than Godly.
Irregardless, the term Theocracy is reserved for Govenrnts in which either God, or a god, is thought to rule, or direclty guide, the Government.
An Eccleseocracy is a Government run by religiosu auhorities, who do not nessisairly draw direct guidance form God ( Apart fromt he usual means by Religions today.)
Again, simly because peopel ar eunfamiliar withthe term Ecclesocracy and misudnerstand what Theeocracy is, doesn't eman we shoudl continue to be sloppy beause tis accepted.
Second, Vatican City is a kind of fantasy kingdom that exists under the protection of the Italian state, and does not have to interact with the rest of the world in any meaningful way; therefore, it is not tested daily against the world's real problems.
The Vatican City-State pronts it sown money, sends diplomats, has Relations with other coutnres, has it sown standing armed forces, its own law codes, its own head of state, and its own observers at the United Naitons.
That makes it a might bit mroe than a Fantasey.
Finally, I am anti-utopian. I am anti-utopian because human beings are vastly imperfect, and are always in a condition of aspiring toward the perfect. If we were perfect, we'd be dead, or in some kind of not yet named transcendental condition.
Thats nice, but not relevant tot he topic at hand.
All previous utopias, theocratic or otherwise, have ended in Tyranny. There are no exceptions in the present world. Even the Buddhists in Shri Lanka have become repressive.
I like hwo it is said. Even the Buddhist in Sri Lanka. Its as if we'd expect better form Buddhists.Then again, the image of Christainity is that its the most brutal and deranged thing out, and the image of Buddhism is enlightnement an peace.
Its all imae of course and the bulk of either ar epeople, withthe same range as anyone else. But hwo cares?
That said, that still doens't prove that an Ecclesiastically run Govenrment woudl have to be a Tyranny. No one discussed Utopanism, and there's not even evidence that an Ecclesiocracy woudl be Utopian in principle.
Certianly a Cahtolic Ecclesiocracy, with its beleif in Original Sin and thee natural tendany to man toward sin, woudln't expect perfection. Nir woudl a Calvinist-run state, with it smuch worse view of humannature ans teahcgn of tital depravity.
It is posisble to envision a Govenrmetn run y Ecclesiastical authrity that is not base dupon utopian principles.
Further, it is posisble that an Ecclesiastical government coudl be fair and just, and nit oppressive and tyrannical.
The asusmption that "All theocracies ar eoppressive" is just that, an asusmption, base don cutural cliches.
Much liek the concept that a Democracy is automaticlaly a free naiton.
Democracies cn be tyrannical too, btu we asosicate the word Democracy with freedom.
But ther eis no pracrical evidence thant a Theocrayc woudl be tyrnanical. Nor an Eccleesiocracy. ( as most are sdiscced.)
Each shoudl eb weighed on its own merit.
This is a wrong deifnition. Even if it is commonly used, it is still wrong.
So, in my definition,
O I do love hwo everythign si so personal...
God is not running things. A bunch of Mullahs, etc., are running things, and their acts are less than Godly.
Irregardless, the term Theocracy is reserved for Govenrnts in which either God, or a god, is thought to rule, or direclty guide, the Government.
An Eccleseocracy is a Government run by religiosu auhorities, who do not nessisairly draw direct guidance form God ( Apart fromt he usual means by Religions today.)
Again, simly because peopel ar eunfamiliar withthe term Ecclesocracy and misudnerstand what Theeocracy is, doesn't eman we shoudl continue to be sloppy beause tis accepted.
Second, Vatican City is a kind of fantasy kingdom that exists under the protection of the Italian state, and does not have to interact with the rest of the world in any meaningful way; therefore, it is not tested daily against the world's real problems.
The Vatican City-State pronts it sown money, sends diplomats, has Relations with other coutnres, has it sown standing armed forces, its own law codes, its own head of state, and its own observers at the United Naitons.
That makes it a might bit mroe than a Fantasey.
Finally, I am anti-utopian. I am anti-utopian because human beings are vastly imperfect, and are always in a condition of aspiring toward the perfect. If we were perfect, we'd be dead, or in some kind of not yet named transcendental condition.
Thats nice, but not relevant tot he topic at hand.
All previous utopias, theocratic or otherwise, have ended in Tyranny. There are no exceptions in the present world. Even the Buddhists in Shri Lanka have become repressive.
I like hwo it is said. Even the Buddhist in Sri Lanka. Its as if we'd expect better form Buddhists.Then again, the image of Christainity is that its the most brutal and deranged thing out, and the image of Buddhism is enlightnement an peace.
Its all imae of course and the bulk of either ar epeople, withthe same range as anyone else. But hwo cares?
That said, that still doens't prove that an Ecclesiastically run Govenrment woudl have to be a Tyranny. No one discussed Utopanism, and there's not even evidence that an Ecclesiocracy woudl be Utopian in principle.
Certianly a Cahtolic Ecclesiocracy, with its beleif in Original Sin and thee natural tendany to man toward sin, woudln't expect perfection. Nir woudl a Calvinist-run state, with it smuch worse view of humannature ans teahcgn of tital depravity.
It is posisble to envision a Govenrmetn run y Ecclesiastical authrity that is not base dupon utopian principles.
Further, it is posisble that an Ecclesiastical government coudl be fair and just, and nit oppressive and tyrannical.
The asusmption that "All theocracies ar eoppressive" is just that, an asusmption, base don cutural cliches.
Much liek the concept that a Democracy is automaticlaly a free naiton.
Democracies cn be tyrannical too, btu we asosicate the word Democracy with freedom.
But ther eis no pracrical evidence thant a Theocrayc woudl be tyrnanical. Nor an Eccleesiocracy. ( as most are sdiscced.)
Each shoudl eb weighed on its own merit.
