No Democracy in China

[myrrh]

Yeah!

I don't think that it isn't obvious that I am not a fan of democracy. I am not too much of a fan of Communism either, but this is more of a cheer that a country is taking a public stand against the West's idea that everyone in the world has to have democracy and be like them.

[Strangelet]

here's the deal: if you want sharia law, then you have to make a willful choice to enact sharia law. And by you I don't mean Ian the immam or Calvin the caliphate i mean you as in the overwhelming majority of the people. As far as favorite flavors of government, I really don't have much of a certainty what is better, I just know that Sartre is right, we are condemned to be free. Which means we are born with absolute freedom, and are forced to choose our government, which means we are born under a natural order of democracy. Period.

communism in asia doesn't suffer from being communist as much as it suffers from shoving communism down the throat of a majority of people who don't want it. That is its biggest problem, it becomes the choice of a few directing the choices of the many.

Only by a power of momentum built by a vast majority can any government be a stable, working government, instead of a vicious despotic regime, regardless of its stripe.

So that's been my biggest complaint with your opinions. Not that you want sharia law over democracy. But that you won't let democracy work its way into sharia law without force. Probably because you know that force is required. But that's a failing on sharia law, not democracy.

Sorry, just being honest.

[Sean]

From the article linked in the opening post:

China faces a number of highly sensitive anniversaries this year, including 20 years since the military crushed pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, and 50 years since an anti-China uprising in Lhasa that sparked the Dalai Lama's flight into exile.

Hardly reason to celebrate their stance.

Any system of government that stifles basic civil liberties is deeply flawed. And I say that fully knowing that there are serious flaws within western-style democracy as well, but hey - western-style democracy allowed us to go from the pre-civil rights era to actually having a black President in just a few short decades. Simply put, that would have been impossible under a rigid system of government like they have in China, or under Sharia law.

[myrrh]

Originally Posted by Sean

western-style democracy allowed us to go from the pre-civil rights era to actually having a black President in just a few short decades. Simply put, that would have been impossible under a rigid system of government like they have in China, or under Sharia law.

This idea is based on the claim that every other system is like the pre-civil rights era, which I don't know about Communism, but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

[myrrh]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

So that's been my biggest complaint with your opinions. Not that you want sharia law over democracy. But that you won't let democracy work its way into sharia law without force. Probably because you know that force is required. But that's a failing on sharia law, not democracy.

Democracy doesn't need to work it's way into Sharia law. This once again is based on the opinion that Democracy is the best system for people to be ruled by, therefor needs to be a part of every system.

Now you mentioned the force factor, has there every been a modern Democracy that was established without violence? I can't think of one. In fact, the whole system of in which modern democracies are based on stem from the French Revolution, which was an act of terrorism.

Yes, Islaam does say that you can not use force to overthrow the ruler, unless certain conditions take place. For example, here in Morocco, there is no doubt that the King rules far from what is the correct way to run an Islaamic government. The vast majority of the people here are oppressed and are afraid to do anything because the police and every government official is corrupt.

The fact that even those these conditions are at play, still does not allow for the people to rise up and overthrow their ruler. The only way the ruler can be overthrown is if he stops allowing the people to pray, or he himself stops praying and participating in pillars of Islaam.

Does this mean that Sharia is flawed? No. The reasons such things exist are to keep order within the society. If people were to violently oppose the rulers, then there would be chaos in the country.

If you were suggesting that Sharia does not allow for voting or those types of things, which are considered 'democractic', then this too is a false belief because, not only was the first four Caliphs 'voted' into power, but so were other rulers through the 1400 years that there was a Sharia government. One just has to look through the history books to see the evidence of this.

The main issue at hand in the modern world, is that the US is preventing the Muslim countries from reforming Sharia based governments, because this would then become a threat to the US. Instead, the Muslim countries are ruled by these puppet leaders that are backed by, and allies of the US.The classic proof for this statement is Hamas, which was the democratically elected government, yet the US backs the Fatah party.

Imagine the effect on the world if all these Muslim countries united into one government again. That would be an instant world super-power overnight. You would have money from the Gulf feeding a state that stretches from Morocco east to Arabia, then north to Turkey. When you think that this would include places like Iran and Pakistan, which have nuclear technology, you can see why the US is doing their best to keep these countries in disarray and under their control. This is not because of the threat of war, but rather the threat of the loss of power.

Find one Muslim country where the majority of the people actually like the ruler and agree with what he is doing for their country? Maybe Iran, or Syria, but I do not know. I can tell you for sure that in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan, the African Muslim countries, and many other places do not like the living conditions under the rulers. Maybe you don't see this because the Media doesn't portray things this way.

Anyway, I kind of went off the thread there, but my point was that you people seem to neglect history and only look at what is going on today and base your judgements off of this.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

This idea is based on the claim that every other system is like the pre-civil rights era...

Not at all. It just illustrates the way society can and has adapted for the better at an impressive rate under a democratic system. This kind of progress is far more difficult to achieve under rigid, unchallenged rule.

Originally Posted by myrrh

...which I don't know about Communism, but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

I'm obviously no expert on Sharia law, but it seems that the treatment of women could be viewed as discriminatory. Same with the treatment of people who may suffer from certain illnesses, like alcoholism. Or homosexuals - hard to say that they get a fair, non-discriminatory shake under Sharia law. And it's certainly discriminatory towards anyone who discovers at some point in their life that they want to leave the Islamic faith - although it's of course acceptable for anyone to leave another faith to convert to Islam.

And yes, democracies were generally formed through violence. That seems somewhat unavoidable any time an oppressive, tyrannical leader is threatened with a loss of power. They certainly aren't going to just hand it over. Hell, even Ghandi had a hard time keeping any violence from happening as he led peaceful protests against British rule. But that doesn't invalidate what he was doing in the least. So honestly, I'm not really sure what the point you're making about violence invalidating democracy is supposed to be.

Ultimately, while democracy has it's flaws, it seems to me to be the most effective form of government in that it recognizes basic human nature, individuality, freedom of expression, the undeniable human instinct to explore new ideas, and it provides a means of correcting shortcomings as they become apparent. But let's face it - every system of government is administered by human beings, and human beings are inherently flawed, which means mistakes will always be made, and corruption will always be a concern. No system of government is perfect.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Blah, blah, bla-bla, blah, bla blah, blah, bbbb, bblaaah.



Did I say blah?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Now you're just being a provocative muppet, jOHN.

Time out.

[cock-a-doodle]

Originally Posted by myrrh

This ..., but Sharia Law does not have plain racism and discrimination written into it. In fact, such ideas run completely contrary to Islaam itself, so to say that a system of government that is Islaam calls for would contain ideas that are against Islaam's core teachings is illogical.

Give me a (this is B.S.mo) break. NO system of government has racism and discrimination written into to them. At least none that anyone pays attention to. It's all just magically gone...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29601858/

And i hate that little opinionated bitch jOHN too.

[cock-a-doodle]

OMG! I got 'em back!