[Warning: the post below wanders into the organization of the
Catholic Church before returning to the subject at hand.]
At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in
the Catholic Church,
How did you think they select popes, then?
In the jargon of political science, the Roman Catholic Church (or, more
specifically for this purpose, the Vatican City) is an elective monarchy.
and
while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on
certain points is soon in serious trouble.
For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his
job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that
this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to
this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official
newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the
publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the
same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in
the bad old days [1].
Whatever the defects of the
United States the situation differs markedly.
If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned
indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the
Catholic
Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions.
Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to
suggest.
Bottom line, words have
established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some
institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian
and may fairly be so described.
And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that
describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan
to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on
that scale?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org