Quote:While I might modify that to say individuals are responsible, I think I get what you are saying. 

 

Still, for discussions' sake, let me throw this out and see what you think. A lot of folks get upset when a city or state has, say, the 10 commandments on government property. They object to the violation of separation of church and state. If such separation is good, why is it so? Also, if such separation is good, what are we to make of areas where Sharia is in effect? 

 

I am not sure of the actual impact of Sharia in terms of, say, homosexuality. I have read some reports that say 'dozens' of homosexuals were killed in an area through Sharia. Given what I understand about percentages of homosexuals, dozens seems to be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the likely practicing homosexuals, so I wonder what that actual societal impact is. Any death is a tragedy. I am just trying to get a handle on what happens in a society with Sharia. Also, even if the state 'only' kills dozens, are there many more killed without recrimination by private individuals? Trying to get an idea of the extent of the repression.

 

I am not saying that we need to go on an anti-jihad against societies with Sharia. But others have raised the issue as one impacting individuals. Wondering if there is any way to delineate how much is possible ideological versus well, the standard issues of power, money, and revenge.

 

Hey BiffSkppy,

 

I wrote this whole thing in response and it is now floating out there in the ether of accidental deletion land...  

 

Let me just say that I agree in part that individuals are also responsible.  But the power of the individual comes from gaining the acceptance via culture.  I don't have a sociological background, but I would submit to you that a culture of violence and barbarism, while ultimately acted upon by at the individual level usually has a "vanguard" (to go back to politics) that usually helps propel those group into a certain direction.  Generally a subset of the culture made up of a smaller group of individuals will move a culture in a certain direction.  This can be seen in history, from the Bolshevicks, to the Nazis, to the Iranian Revolution.  While there generally tends to be an individual "leader" the driver is the smaller subset, because in my mind, the individual would be shouted down if not for his supporters.  

 

Now speaking of Sharia...  I've been waiting for a revolution where Iranians take back thier country from the theocracy that runs it.  But, I don't think it's that simple.  A revolution is messy, and as we've seen with Egypt, Yemen, and Syria, it can do more harm than good.  However, there is a slow movement in Iran towards westernization.  As the theocracy is aging and dying of the youth of Iran that are now in thier 30's and 40's since the revolution are raising kids that are not into rule by religion.  A slow progression from hyper conservatism to more liberal and western ideas is how Iran has been moving since the death of the Ayatollah.

 

To me, this is far more beneficial of a movement than good ole 'Murricah getting involved like we did with Iraq.  

 

The bottom line, at least in my mind is that violoence and war is usually not the best approach to correcting things.  Of course, in Iraq and Syria, it looks like we don't have a choice because we broke it.  But I think it's best to leave Iran to it's own evolution.  

---