Walter Hinteler wrote:You intoduced the term "theocratic" here. Now. Neither did I use it nor had itbeen mentioned re this subject before here.
Now you are being disingenuous.
You challenged steve with the assertion that he lives in a country led by the head of a Christian church.
I am convinced you don't believe that the Queen is, in any meaningful way, the "head" of the Church of England, or that she, in a substantive way, "leads" the UK.
Therefore I can only assume that you are trying to establish some equivilence between a "theocratic" UK and a "theocratic" Iran.
You don't need to use the word "theocratic," to imply it.
Since the UK is clearly NOT a theocrasy, I can only assume you are suggesting steve, and others, should not consider Iran a theocrasy, or more to the point, that muslim extremists are using their religion as a shield for their political goals much as Henry VIII and the IRA did.
First of all, while Henry did, the IRA did not.
Secondly the comparison you suggest is only valid when considering a Christian monarch of hundreds of years ago and a modern Islamic Supreme Leader. Clearly, Elizabeth II is not disguising political interests behind religious veils.
Finally, the real issue is not whether or not the Theocrats are true religious zealots, but whether or not they are successful in firing up a significant number of their followers on a largely religious basis.
Henry was, Elizabeth and the IRA never tried.
The would be Caliphs of modern Islam, very definately are trying, and succeeding.
In any case, avoid my assumptions by more clearly making your point.