Many killed in Ankara bomb blast

[DGuller]

Nonsense.  The United States is a country where religion plays a large role, it has since the 19th century.  Democracy has done fine.  In fact I would argue the exact opposite of what you say.  Countries where religion is weakened by the state also have weak democratic traditions.  Turkey is a prime example.  Others would be Russia, China, and Mexico.  France is a functional democracy (though closer to what Erdogan wanted), but French Democracy has a been pretty bumpy.  They are on their Fifth Republic after all.  Countries that limit religion are also limiting speech.

There is a clear separation between religion and state in US, and that has largely always been respected.  The people in government are religious, but the government itself has always been secular.

As for the other countries, I don't know about most of them in detail to comment, but you're dead wrong about Russia.  The Orthodox Church has been the tool of oppressive Russian government since forever.  Yes, even during the Soviet times.  And it's been let loose on the people again during Putin's time.

There aren't that many examples of functional democracies in general, unfortunately.  But the ones that have stood the test of time have all been remarkably secular.  There are secular autocracies out there, sure, but there aren't any theocratic democracies.  I wonder why? 

[Valmy]

Strain of war is an internal problem.  Conquest in War is an external one.  I don't think anyone can say that the French 1st Republic was healthy.  The French 4th Republic suffered from the problems of the third.

If the military is committing coups because of defeats I think it is an external problem. That has nothing to do with Democracy.

And what poisoned the 1st Republic? The decision to declare war on Austria. A huge war shortly after the Constitution was ratified would have been disastrous for us. Heck the military nearly revolted more than once during the Revolutionary War.

[Razgovory]

Nonsense.  The United States is a country where religion plays a large role, it has since the 19th century.  Democracy has done fine.  In fact I would argue the exact opposite of what you say.  Countries where religion is weakened by the state also have weak democratic traditions.  Turkey is a prime example.  Others would be Russia, China, and Mexico.  France is a functional democracy (though closer to what Erdogan wanted), but French Democracy has a been pretty bumpy.  They are on their Fifth Republic after all.  Countries that limit religion are also limiting speech.

There is a clear separation between religion and state in US, and that has largely always been respected.  The people in government are religious, but the government itself has always been secular.

As for the other countries, I don't know about most of them in detail to comment, but you're dead wrong about Russia.  The Orthodox Church has been the tool of oppressive Russian government since forever.  Yes, even during the Soviet times.  And it's been let loose on the people again during Putin's time.

There aren't that many examples of functional democracies in general, unfortunately.  But the ones that have stood the test of time have all been remarkably secular.  There are secular autocracies out there, sure, but there aren't any theocratic democracies.  I wonder why? 

Because it's contradiction in terms.  A rule by priests is can't also be the rule by the people.  You are essentially asking why are there no democratic dictatorships.  If you are using the example of countries that don't have a strict seperation of church and state then yeah, there's lots of Democracies.  UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc.

[DGuller]

Because it's contradiction in terms.  A rule by priests is can't also be the rule by the people.  You are essentially asking why are there no democratic dictatorships.  If you are using the example of countries that don't have a strict seperation of church and state then yeah, there's lots of Democracies.  UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc.

I'd be curious to see some of our Spanish posters weigh in on the role of religion in democracy in Spain. 

As for the other three countries, when they became democratic, religion has long seized to be relevant there.  Separating religion from state is most important in countries where religion actually has power.

[Razgovory]

This is not true.  Are you saying that Britain was not a democracy in 1940?  Irreligion is a fairly recent phenomenon in most of these countries.  You seem to be jumping from one foot to another as I shoot down your arguments.  Can you think of any Democracy that limits the rights to religious speech or religious meetings?  I can't.  Like a Democratic theocracy it's a Democracy that so grossly limits the rights to speech and assembly isn't a Democracy.  Such behavior is just as much an impediment to Democracy as government by priest, perhaps more since it's possible that Head of state could be a religious figure but not actually have power like in a constitutional monarchy.  One of the biggest reason that Turkish Democracy still struggles is because the constant military coups, often inspired a need to restrict religious freedom.  While Erdogan's hamfisted efforts to reign in the military are bad, they are less a threat to democracy then a military coup to overthrow Erdogan.  A successful Democracy must have a military subordinate to civilian government. And while his methods and perhaps motives are questionable, curtailing the militaries power is necessary step. Overthrowing the government and throwing people in jail simply because the army doesn't like is always a step backward.

Now, I ask you as I asked Marty do you have any evidence that these suicide bombings are the work of the government?

[DGuller]

This is not true.  Are you saying that Britain was not a democracy in 1940?  Irreligion is a fairly recent phenomenon in most of these countries.  You seem to be jumping from one foot to another as I shoot down your arguments.  Can you think of any Democracy that limits the rights to religious speech or religious meetings?  I can't.  Like a Democratic theocracy it's a Democracy that so grossly limits the rights to speech and assembly isn't a Democracy.  Such behavior is just as much an impediment to Democracy as government by priest, perhaps more since it's possible that Head of state could be a religious figure but not actually have power like in a constitutional monarchy.  One of the biggest reason that Turkish Democracy still struggles is because the constant military coups, often inspired a need to restrict religious freedom.  While Erdogan's hamfisted efforts to reign in the military are bad, they are less a threat to democracy then a military coup to overthrow Erdogan.  A successful Democracy must have a military subordinate to civilian government. And while his methods and perhaps motives are questionable, curtailing the militaries power is necessary step. Overthrowing the government and throwing people in jail simply because the army doesn't like is always a step backward.

You're not shooting anything down, because for one your argument is hopeless.  Every single liberal democracy in the world is secular, it's really impossible to argue away this inconvenient fact.  And your example of Spain was a shotgun blast in the foot, because Catholic Church was a notorious accomplice of Franco's regime.  And what coincided with Spain becoming a democracy was the erosion of Church's power in Spain, and widespread disdain for it.  Good.

And by the way, no one complained about the military being defanged, although it was unfortunate given what greater evil replaced it.  What started off this discussion was jailing people for insulting Erdogan.  So let's not sneakily move the goal posts.

Now, I ask you as I asked Marty do you have any evidence that these suicide bombings are the work of the government?

No, of course not.  That's why I said "I wouldn't be surprised" as opposed to "I know they did it".  Why would I not be surprised?  Because Erdogan likes to mimic Putin, and Putin likely did make use of false flag bombings to get in power.

[Eddie Teach]

Nonsense.  The United States is a country where religion plays a large role, it has since the 19th century. 

So it didn't during the 18th century? 

[Razgovory]

This is not true.  Are you saying that Britain was not a democracy in 1940?  Irreligion is a fairly recent phenomenon in most of these countries.  You seem to be jumping from one foot to another as I shoot down your arguments.  Can you think of any Democracy that limits the rights to religious speech or religious meetings?  I can't.  Like a Democratic theocracy it's a Democracy that so grossly limits the rights to speech and assembly isn't a Democracy.  Such behavior is just as much an impediment to Democracy as government by priest, perhaps more since it's possible that Head of state could be a religious figure but not actually have power like in a constitutional monarchy.  One of the biggest reason that Turkish Democracy still struggles is because the constant military coups, often inspired a need to restrict religious freedom.  While Erdogan's hamfisted efforts to reign in the military are bad, they are less a threat to democracy then a military coup to overthrow Erdogan.  A successful Democracy must have a military subordinate to civilian government. And while his methods and perhaps motives are questionable, curtailing the militaries power is necessary step. Overthrowing the government and throwing people in jail simply because the army doesn't like is always a step backward.

You're not shooting anything down, because for one your argument is hopeless.  Every single liberal democracy in the world is secular, it's really impossible to argue away this inconvenient fact.  And your example of Spain was a shotgun blast in the foot, because Catholic Church was a notorious accomplice of Franco's regime.  And what coincided with Spain becoming a democracy was the erosion of Church's power in Spain, and widespread disdain for it.  Good.

And by the way, no one complained about the military being defanged, although it was unfortunate given what greater evil replaced it.  What started off this discussion was jailing people for insulting Erdogan.  So let's not sneakily move the goal posts.

Now, I ask you as I asked Marty do you have any evidence that these suicide bombings are the work of the government?

No, of course not.  That's why I said "I wouldn't be surprised" as opposed to "I know they did it".  Why would I not be surprised?  Because Erdogan likes to mimic Putin, and Putin likely did make use of false flag bombings to get in power.

Most people are Catholics in Spain.  You have me at disadvantage here though, since I was thinking of Belgium and wrote Spain instead.  Your definition of secular is quite narrow with separation of church and state and irreligious and runs into problems.  Was the UK a Democracy in 1940?  When did it becomes one?  When did Norway become a Democracy?  When did any of these countries that we consider democracies and lack a separation of church and state become democracies?  What is a threshold of irreligion before a country becomes a democracy?

[Martinus]

Spain is definitely not a religious country any more. In fact, the support given by the Catholic church to the anti-democratic regime is one of the reasons for this state of affairs.

Voice of the Catholic church is regularly ignored there when it comes to law making.

[Martinus]

Now, I ask you as I asked Marty do you have any evidence that these suicide bombings are the work of the government?

What part of "I wouldn't put it past him" suggests I claim to have any evidence or proof that he did it? 

The expression simply means that, based on what I know about the man, he seems capable of doing something like this.

[The Brain]

Sweden no longer has a state church, BUT the monarch has to be Swedish-style Lutheran, BUT the monarch has no power (as in actually no power in the constitution, unlike some countries where tradition plays a part).

I don't know what the discussion is really about, BUT I like to post.

[Tonitrus]

Sweden no longer has a state church, BUT the monarch has to be Swedish-style Lutheran, BUT the monarch has no power (as in actually no power in the constitution, unlike some countries where tradition plays a part).

I don't know what the discussion is really about, BUT I like to post.

Out of curiosity, I googled the current Swedish royal family, and most of them are not blonde.

And only the king looks capable of taking an axe to some Saxons...

[The Brain]

Sweden no longer has a state church, BUT the monarch has to be Swedish-style Lutheran, BUT the monarch has no power (as in actually no power in the constitution, unlike some countries where tradition plays a part).

I don't know what the discussion is really about, BUT I like to post.

Out of curiosity, I googled the current Swedish royal family, and most of them are not blonde.

Just what are you implying, Sir?

[Tonitrus]

Just what are you implying, Sir?

Failure to meet our shallow American stereotypes. 

(though the princess on the far right...from the pic above...fits the bill)

[Eddie Teach]

And only the king looks capable of taking an axe to some Saxons...

I wouldn't count his wife out on that score, even if she isn't very tall.