I think democracy has hugely fault, in democratic countries (USA / Europe / ...), where elections are not rigged (I think), the results show that the people are opposed around 50% vs. 50 % (or at best 60% vs 40%, I am French and I know that the presidential elections end up with scores of this type generally between socialist and "UMP").
The problem is that the "losers" are not necessarily the worst, I think everyone does not vote for the best choice, but for his personal interest, and because of that, I do not think the people are best placed to choose their leaders. I'm not for a corrupt, autocratic, or worse system ... But I think an objective system (less subjective anyway) with a technocratic election (but not corrupted by economists seeking to benefit) would be better than democracy ... (Recently the people of Saudi Arabia appears to be favorable for the killing of a free thinker (considered guilty of blasphemy by opposing Islam) ... by the way, the elections "democratic" in Tunisia, ... have not really pushed the best political tendency in power ...) For me, technocracy with a scientistic ideology (use the exact sciences to the humanities, would lead to objective solutions), but respecting ethics requiring the State to act up in the interest of the people, would be a much better system that what we are currently offering ... (Because I doubt that the individual vote of a citizen to be issued in the interest of all rather than the personal interest of this same citizen).
Because I'm French, I can not really judge the American voting system which I believe is different from mine, and the ability of the American people to make good decision, but I was wondering what you would think of my opinion (which is probably non-existent in France although I've found two or three guys on the internet who shared the same).
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-14 21:13
The only real democracy is "direct democracy", like the one Ancient Greece had.
So called Representative Democracies are just a big lie, where you have to vote for a puppet among several puppets.
Islam has a powerful ideology, that, in theory, could defeat capitalism, but Islam needs strong religious leaders, like Khomeini, to really shine. It's hard to find loyal and not corrupt man in our days. Even when Islam opposes capitalism and consumerism, people still think only about their skin, without any altruism.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 2:31
I also thought about what kind of direct DEMOCRACY, probably more true that indirect democracy, but there remains the problem of reliability of the people in their choices (the German people elected a prisoner who had previously attempted to overthrow the government of his countries ...) Direct democracy would work if the people were educated to make good decisions, but there is a risk that this education be changed to manipulation of the people if those who organized the country are not honest. But today Switzerland is what is closest (many referenda) in France, an extrem-right party proposing the referendum launch by citizens, ...
Otherwise I am totally against the use of religion in politics, Islam or whatever, because I think the role of religion is to help their believers in their way of life, ... I think religion has nothing to do with politics, theocracy is not really fair systems (they favor believers, but does not help or flange believers of other religions (and atheists)) . I think to a religion in power tends to create inequities among the people for their beliefs. And to act in a disproportionate when it comes to "blasphemy". We must protect the freedoms of worship and avoid promoting one religion, then Islam can be a powerful ideology, I think it dangerous in politics.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 3:30
>>3
Good religion acts as unifying idea, promoting altruism. Islam also promotes common language - arabic. Religion should somewhat constain corruption, especially when religious leaders are disallowed from having family and children, and raise bottom-up.
I think to a religion in power tends to create inequities among the people for their beliefs. And to act in a disproportionate when it comes to "blasphemy".
Religion should promote assimilation. Punishment from blashemy is the right thing, because blashemy is like high treason.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 3:33
>>3 theocracy is not really fair systems (they favor believers, but does not help or flange believers of other religions (and atheists))
Atheism (Humanism) is a sect in Judaism, just like Communism and Christianity were before it. They have one thing common - all started from accusing parent religion of being mercantile orthopraxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf).
For example, Jesus drove out all who were buying and selling at The Temple. Same for Karl Marx, who was "anti-semite" and accused jews of capitalism. Now Atheists accuse religion of not being pantheistic enough.
Without Judaism, there would be no Atheism, because Atheism was born under Judaism's influence (both positive and negative). Atheism basically means "not Theism" = "not Judaism", thus you can't have it separate from Judaism. Thus this "Atheism is not Judaism" is more like "GNU is not Unix": even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism).
>>5 Atheism (Humanism) is a sect in JudaismWithout Judaism, there would be no Atheism
Bhahaha! That's a good laugh. Gee, tell me, were all these people a part of a "sect of Judaism"? http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html Note, some are during times of when Jews were extremely restricted in all manners of public life. This constant conflation of atheism with Judaism has no basis in reality.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 9:01
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 12:59
>>6
For example, a noted atheist, Professor Dawkins, in the first chapter of The God Delusion describes himself as "a deeply religious non-believer." He calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion," and waxes poetical as follows:
Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 13:00
He calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion
Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family and had a lifelong respect for his Jewish heritage. Around the time Einstein was eleven years old he went through an intense religious phase, during which he followed Jewish religious precepts in detail, including abstaining from eating pork. He composed several songs in honor of God. Einstein's Jewish background and upbringing were significant to him, and his Jewish identity was strong, increasingly so as he grew older. Einstein was opposed to atheism. The simple appellation "agnostic" may not be entirely accurate, given his many expressions of belief in a Spinozan concept of Deity. It is accurate enough to call his religious affiliation "Jewish," with the understanding of the variety encompassed by such a label. Einstein had a positive attitude toward religion. He wrote of his belief in a noble "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quotes on the subject of science and religion is: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in 'Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.' This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.' Einstein's famous epithet on the 'uncertainty principle' was 'God does not play dice.'"
>>8-9
You've failed to answer my question in >>6 , and you trot out some random quote from Dawkins, which basically amounts to "the universe has some kind of order to it and I find satisfaction in that". Not the same as having a personal god. Also, nice cherry-picking quotes from Einstein, where if you actually clicked my link posted in >>6 you would see: Albert Einstein, German born American threoretical physicist (1879-1955)."It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.
You're grasping at straws at something that isn't ever there. So, once again I ask, what of the people listed in the link I posted in >>6? (I predict that you'll still ignore my question)
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 23:49
"the universe has some kind of order to it and I find satisfaction in that"
This is how conspiracyfags propagate. It's also why you'll never "win" an argument with them.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-16 10:11
>>11 the universe has some kind of order to it and I find satisfaction in that
That is what they say...