Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Why should we do that? I don't think that anyone here believes that?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Aug 18th, 2010 at 05:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh? It's really Rhetoric 101.

Lych: gives Wikipedia's definition of what a theocratic state is - one that is governed by immediate divine guidance... whose officials are regarded as divinely guided... which enacts theonomic laws. It can be argued that this is the case in Egypt given that its constitution stipulates that Sharia (read: infallible, theonomic law) is THE principal source of the country's legislation, and that its executive branch applies this divine legislation through state sponsored Sharia courts.

ThatBritGuy responds by saying: "Egypt can't be a theocracy coz there haven't been any Sahria stonings lately"... and goes on to say that "if this is your definition [it's Wikipedia's, not mine] of what a theocratic state is then Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are also theocratic states"

If ThatBritGuy so firmly believes what he wrote, I suggest he amend Wikipedia to reflect his beliefs, either:
a) by adding something like "theocracies are governed by immediate divine guidance... practicing Sharia stoning" or
b) by leaving the definition as is and adding something like "according to this definition, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are theocratic states" or
c) by enlightening us all with his very own, completely different definition.

For the record - I never said that Saudi Arabia and Egypt (or all Arabic countries for that matter) were the same. What I said was that there were similarities between some of these countries. That, surprisingly, seems to be an indiscernible nuance to some around here who, instead of trying to understand the broader picture of what is being discussed, take the time and energy to point out a typo (IV instead of VI) thinking that it will somehow give more weight to their arguments. Also, I am not what you would refer to as a Neo-Con... nor am I Sarah Palin's admirer. That's such a grossly simplistic way of interpreting our (much more complex) socio-political landscape.

by Lynch on Thu Aug 19th, 2010 at 01:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series