Skip to comments.Would Obama rather have no-freedom-of-religion Muslim Brotherhood, or an autocrat that does allow...
Posted on 07/01/2013 3:29:44 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
...freedom of religion?
One of the reasons that anti-suppressive government protestors (not merely anti-government protestors) in Egypt are protesting Morsi is the apparent lack of freedom of religion in Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.
Before Morsi, there was the autocratic ruler Mubarak, certainly not the archetype of representative rule, but one who was light-years ahead of the Muslim Brotherhood when it came to allowing religious freedom.
If you can have Democratically-elected rulers, why not have freedom of religion to go along with this as well as freedom of speech? How Democratic are they if they suppress these freedoms?
They need NEITHER the Muslim Brotherhood NOR a Mubarak-type leader. But BOTH a Democratically elected representative government AND freedom of speech/religion.
Both Dems and Repubs need to defend the 'same-old same-old' when it comes to our Middle Eastern policy - because that is what seems to be going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, etc.
What say you?
Forcing the man out of his Brotherhood closet full of western suits! Egypt is calling his hand.
I think the answer is simple, what would be the most damaging to America and the free world? That is the choice the Bamster would make!
Not even the freedom of a different religion, but the freedom of not practicing radical religion. Just like in Iran, many women had the same protections as men, even as practicing muslims. But now, again, like in Iran they are shoved into Taliban territory. They see Afghanistan and Iran and DO NOT want to go to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.