Michael Moore, "Where to invade next?" (the French and Finish episodes to do with education, food, taxes etc.). Use your military education, use a proxy, you techy...
Now, now, this really is funny!!!! A man who tries to take the proverbial Mickey and writes very long posts, even correcting people who he allegedly agrees with, bitches about somebody doing his own thing - could it be it's because it's done on him?!?
No. It's because your post was almost entirely about politics which is OT in this thread. I'm not going to perpetuate that huge amount of OT. That and I agree with much of what you said about the US. Sorry to disappoint you.
Can we change the title of the thread into "If a fundamentalist state is omnipresent, Humans MUST fight for their freedom!" When I say "fundamentalist state", I mean via its military, police, intelligence services, dependent judiciary etc. etc. etc. We now know it wasn't just Stalin, Hitler, Duce, Franco, Homeini - but good ol' USofA, UK, Russia and so on and so forth. I mean, an agnostic proposal, leaving the Q from the OP behind and actually debating our real world with its probs.
@gorski: Perhaps another thread should be started along those lines. In the US, we have separation of church and state, which is supposed to protect everybody from theocratic rule. I can't honestly say whether or not that's working; the lines are blurred.
Hehe, I didn't mean it seriously (to change th thread's title) - in line with the nature of debate, as an agnostic, my proposal is going against "pro et contra" of an un-winable debate, towards one which might be more meaningful, maybe...
You left out some Islamic states too Go over there and say you do not believe in Allah and see where that'll get ya (if ya do, try not to lose your head if your opposed) Your view of freedom is of your perspective, Here you can say just about anything you want about any god of your choosing, Some places on this earth won't let you do that without being in fear of your existence, and those that are radical will make sure you will not be tolerated
@gorski: That makes perfect sense to me. @Mr.X: I didn't need a Thesaurus this time. @Katzenfreund,Joe C: Yup.
Jeezzzuuusssss!!!!! Get a grip, dude... More so in some countries than others. In the US it is forbidden, however, it is not easy to police if the clergy openly advertises a party during election time (and worse) and the prosecutions are almost non-existent... In some "old democracies" the head of the state/"sovereign" is the head of the Church (and you may have "blasphemy laws" still on the books, as it were [see the UK, one of "my" countries]) and so on... In Croatia, Ireland, Poland and so on - it's dire! It all goes back to Kant's little text on "What is Enlightenment?", I think... See my signature, please. Maybe "power seeking" first, then shamanism/church was instrumentalised for "influence" purposes, over keeping one's power, sure...
translation error, we spell it like this; Khomeini be aware of the grammar police, they'll gitcha when your not look'n
Nah, nah, nah, if you spell it like that (Anglo-Americans must get everywhere and "direct" everything), then "Homo homini Homeini" doesn't work!
Inclined to agree. If you adjust it to say "Religion" vs "The Church" I would strongly agree. "The Church" in that context has been around for a little over 2000 years. Religion has been around since cavemen telling stories over the fire. (Long before Prostitution.) Neanderthals are known to have buried their dead so it's possible Religion has been around since before man. (Before Homo sapiens sapiens) .