T'was the night

[Tomk80]

I still don't see what you're getting at, but from the BBC News:

• Asahara claimed to be a reincarnation of the Hindu god Shiva, and promised to lead his followers to salvation when impending Armageddon arrived.

Worshipping the God himself (as the followers of Asahara thought they were doing here) is not idol worship. If that would be the case, worshipping Jesus would be idol worship too.

 

[Morcova]

Ask the victims of the Aum Shinri Kyo subway attacks, or the next-of-kin of the 9-11 attacks.

If murdering in the name of religion was a strickly non-christian thing you'd have a point.

But as you yourself have very aptly demonstrated there is a lust in some christians to harm those who don't believe as they do.

 

[Morcova]

I have to go right now, but here's a quick answer:

Aum Shinri Kyo means "Supreme Truth". Shoko Asahara was a worshipper of Shiva, the god of destruction, and he wanted to get back to worshipping Shiva the way he was meant to be worshipped --- as a destroyer.

Wrong.

Perhaps the most widespread of the arguments is a notion that the primary deity revered by Aum followers is Shiva (the Hindu deity symbolizing the power of destruction). In fact, the Aleph's Lord Shiva (also known as Samantabhadra, Kuntu-Zangpo, or Adi-Buddha) derives from Tibetan Vajrayana tradition and has no connection to the Hindu Shiva.

 

[Morcova]

Off topic, but I see this mindless statement so frequently, and it always gets my goat. Saying a country is a republic says very little about how it is governed.

The republic of Rome was an oligarchy. The People's Republic of China is a communist oligarchy. The Republic of Myanmar (Burma) is a military oligarchy. The Republic of North Korea is a communist dictatorship. Under Pinochet, the Republic of Chile was a fascist dictatorship.

By contrast, the Republic of France is a congressional style, liberal democracy. And the Republic of India is a parliamentary style liberal democracy.

Republics do not necessarily protect the rights of minorities, and countries which are not republics (e.g. Canada, Britain, the Netherlands) often do.

It is silly to say that a republic cannot also be a democracy, or that a republic is designed to protect minorities in a way that non-republics are not, since we have many examples of contrary cases in both directions.

Protection of minorities depends more on respect for law and human rights than on whether or not a country is a republic. Republics that are not democratic have a poor history of respecting the rights of minorities, as do oppressive monarchies. Democratic republics and constitutional monarchies both have better records of protecting minorities.

You are mistaking what a countries calls itself (republic of china) with what style of goverment it has.

 

[crimsondeath]

You are mistaking what a countries calls itself (republic of china) with what style of goverment it has.

"The People's Republic of China is a communist oligarchy."


i dont think he is mistaking

 

[Aron-Ra]

the Aleph's Lord Shiva (also known as Samantabhadra, Kuntu-Zangpo, or Adi-Buddha) derives from Tibetan Vajrayana tradition and has no connection to the Hindu Shiva.

Shiva? Is that your real name?
Hey, are you related to that deity guy?

No, its just a coincidence.

 

[CCGirl]

"The People's Republic of China is a communist oligarchy."


i dont think he is mistaking

China is most definately State-Capitalist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

China is most definately State-Capitalist.

which China?
PRC or RoC?

 

[CCGirl]

which China?
PRC or RoC?

The RoC is not a legitimate state, I was refering to the PRC.

 

[gluadys]

You are mistaking what a countries calls itself (republic of china) with what style of goverment it has.

Ah, this is so off-topic. I didn't really mean to start a controversy with my rant. I just detest the abuse of the English language (or any language for that matter.)

Republic is not a style of government. It is a form of government which exists in many styles. One of those styles is democratic.

What is needed for a republican form of government is that no position of power be inherited by birth, but all are subject to election.

However, people can and do elect dictators. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze-dong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung were all elected, some repeatedly. Typically, even when a person first seizes power by force (as Stalin, Mao and Castro did) they still legitimate their rule through elections. So the republican form of government is still respected and appealed to. The dictator claims to rule by the will of and on behalf of the people.

A one-party state may also be republican in form. Although one cannot be a candidate unless one belongs to the only legal party, membership in the party is not a birthright, and the candidates must still be elected by the people.

In American history, the right to elect and to be elected was often restricted. In particular women did not always have a franchise. But the US was still a republic nevertheless. So is Switzerland, where women are still excluded from political power.

In the past, the right to vote and to stand for office was denied to many on the basis of ethnicity (native peoples of America) skin colour (apartheid South Africa) or class (only property-owners allowed to vote--19th century Europe).

These are all restrictions on democracy, but they don't violate the definition of republic. When the right to vote and the right to be elected is opened up to a wider and wider segment of society, it becomes more democratic in style. It does not become more republican in form.

That is why it is silly to speak of republic as if no republic were democratic. Many republics, including the US, are democratic. We may wish they were more so, but they are not going to be more or less republican on the basis that they are more or less democratic.

Nor are non-republics like Canada going to be less democratic because the head of state inherited her position.

In short, "republic" and "democratic" are two different terms which are not mutually exclusive. They should not be interchanged with each other. Nor should it be thought that having one means you must have or cannot have the other.

You can have a democracy which is not a republic. You can have a republic which is not democratic and you can also have a republic which is a democracy. Both conflating the terms as if they meant the same thing, or forcing them apart as if you cannot have both is an abuse of political terminology. "Democratic republic" is neither a tautology nor an oxymoron.

 

[gluadys]

China is most definately State-Capitalist.

Sure it is. Because the Communist Party of China has significantly changed its policies.

But they are still the policies of the Communist Party. Even though neither Marx nor Mao would recognize them. The Communist Party is still the government. And only members of the Communist Party may stand for election.

Hence the government is an oligarchy of the Communist Party, or a Communist oligarchy.

 

[Morcova]

Shiva? Is that your real name?
Hey, are you related to that deity guy?

No, its just a coincidence.

I bet your a huge fan!