Where would you go?

That much is true. For many audiophiles, much like movie collectors, it's about the prestige and supposed bragging rights of owning something in a specific physical format, often with "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition" printed on it.

Which is kind of irrelevant in an age when a music collection is likely to cost $0.

But this is the Christian Heritage Party's moment to shine!

Note to people somehow unable to use internet search: the CHP is (from memory) anti-abortion, anti-contraception, all the way up to (some degree) antidivorce. Seeing one of their election signs on a front lawn is a good warning to stay away from the property owner.

Would you rather have people who are honestly uncertain or people who are dishonestly certain? Honest certainty is the ideal scenario, but certainty is a hard thing to get in science (and some would argue that you should never be too certain, anyway).

Other people have written long responses to your FUD. I merely have this: apparently, "freedom is slavery" to you. Nice to know.

There is one exception and that is the near-psychopathic Edward Teller, who was obsessed with using nuclear weapons to "solve" every problem. He was trotted out for years as a token pro-nuclear scientist by the US government and people have far too much respect for him.

Well, yes. Anyone who has seen some of their anti-vaccinationist articles knows that most of their contributors are simply insane and the site has systemic anti-science and anti-medical biases. Its pure political articles are marginally better because they can get plenty of starving leftist writers to post there (who want to say they were published somewhere, but overall the quality of the site has never been good and anyone can recognize that. It comes straight from the source and the management and stems outward.

One thing many people mistakenly get caught up with is terms like "aristocracy" or "fascism", overusing them. While "fascism" can be useful if used appropriately or for shock value, a more important thing to say is this: in any given situation where one group or person has more power than the rest of the people, that group or person accumulates more power over time unless stopped. Over time, as our civilization has become more technologically advanced (enabling us to organize in ways we could not before), we've gradually accumulated ways of slowing them down. Constitutional protections (such as in the Magna Carta), the concept of decentralized unions of states rather than centralized power, democracy (designed to reduce the ability of a powerful minority to terrorize a peaceful majority), socialism (designed to correct power imbalances) and anarchism (a state without leaders at all). Compared to the great struggle between authoritarianism (which is innate in all people) and the urge to overcome it, almost everything else is window dressing.

I feel privileged to be one of the few people who recognized the (paraphrasing of that) quote. Well done, sir. And if more people saw Network, we might be better-off.

It's similar to the classic "crime" of Wrecking during the Stalinist Purges. Anyone who could remotely be considered to be undermining the Russian economy could be convicted of it and it was considered a form of sabotage. In this case, they didn't care what he said; instead, they cared that he had said it in a way others might have read it or heard it. The idea was that, by taking a liberal stance with Islam, he might encourage others to do the same. The Saudi monarchy uses a conservative version of Islam to reinforce its rule, so undermining (or disagreeing with, which to them is undermining) their interpretation of Islam is undermining their authority. Which it is, in a way, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with undermining a despotic regime.

Consider the Papal theocracy (the papacy) in Europe, or simply in Italy until the mid-19th century. When your head of state, head of government, and head of religion are the same person (or if you head of state and head of government draw their authority from religion), objecting to or disagreeing with the state-enforced religion is undermining the basis for rule ("divine right") for that ruler. Without this excuse, the populace have a tendency to see that the ruler is manifestly unfit and ... remove him from rule. Which is what the Saudis are afraid of, especially since this has happened very recently and is happening right now, very close to them. What they are relying on is the understandable coincidence of liberal political beliefs and liberal religious beliefs in the same people, so the latter can be an excuse to haul people away to stop them from implementing the former. Any sort of anti-authoritarian or believer in free speech and thought is an automatic opponent to them, because by expressing themselves freely, they encourage others to do so as well, and if people were to express things freely, they might just do something like express their hatred of the reigme.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Actually, I'm not aware of a single example of honour killings in Iran. If you want a better example of a "pinnacle of Islamic rule" Saudi Arabia (the US puppet/ally) would be much more appropriate. Other candidates would be Indonesia, for complicated reasons. Since Indonesia is primarily ethnically non-Arabic, yet Arabs are given higher social status and considered more "true" to Islam (due to "Arab supremacist" themes embedded in the Koran, not the least a prohibition (often ignored) against translating it), much like Spanish-descended people in Latin America (who have not "bred" with natives and are technically a non-Latino minority). You could probably make a decent argument for why Indonesia's Muslim population is so fervent -- compensation for feelings of inferiority due to not being Arabic is the likeliest.

It's also important to realize the context of why they believe what they do. Essentially, it's a form of semi-primitive tribalism focused on the family unit. Most societies, as they progress, inevitably abandon this model or heavily reduce its importance, but it is a very major underpinning to the Abrahamic religions. Essentially, it is patriarchal and focused on the absolute divine right of the patriarch to do whatever he wants. The fact that the prohibitions in the Old Testament limiting the power of a patriarch are so weak attests to the fact of how much control a man might have over his family. This sort of tribalism, applied on a larger scale, is the root for racism and nationalism, as well as other evils. Its primary focus is simple: defining a group so the members know whom they should include or exclude. Culture is another form of in-group/out-group xenophobia, which is why liberals tend to embrace multiculturalism, while conservatives tend to be far less adventurous.

As far as Sharia goes, it has parallels in Judaism and Christianity (and, indeed, parallel groups attempting to practice similar systems) because it is based on the concept of the supposed authority of the patriarch. This is something which supports not just calcified familial systems, including caste systems, but also feudal monarchies (the concept of divine right having been directly invoked by European kings). In this case, honour and prestige become huge factors -- anyone who has read about the Victorian high society would realize that, while there wasn't a whole lot that was illegal for upper-class people, but that they relied so much on being seen as "gentlemanly" and on being approved of by their peers that they were forced to hide any behaviour not condoned by their society. It's similar to the Inner Party of Nineteen Eighty-Four, with the proles being far more free (albeit while undergoing deprivation) than Party members.

In the cases of feudal societies or societies transitioning out of feudalism, rising egalitarianism could compel the remnants of the feudal nobility/aristocracy or of the general elite class to struggle to maintain their illusion of control and authority -- for instance, through censorship, as in the case of Thailand. In other cases, religion can be used as a proxy in an attempt to bolster authority (which, in the Middle East, has been well-documented with Saddam Hussein's increasing fundamentalism and religious authoritarianism as his rule went on, likely as a cynical attempt to keep Iraqis under his thumb). Many dictators tend to be adaptive opportunists who will adopt a tool (like religion) if they need it to get into (or stay in) power. Another good example is Hitler's embrace of Catholicism (and acknowledgement of Lutheranism) during his rise to power, in an attempt to gain more followers and to turn a largely ethnic conflict into a religious conflict as well, with the simultaneous replacement of pre-existing religion in his inner circle with a home-grown cult, complete with mystic origins. The rub for Hitler was that too much alignment with Catholicism would put him into the classic conflict that had dominated Germany for centuries -- the authority of the Pope versus the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor (or dictator). For small-time dictators in the Middle East, many of whom are Sunni (rather than Shi'ite countries), their religion is somewhat decentralized, much like independent Protestant groups in places like the United States. This gives them the easy ability to simply use religion as a political tool (to be fair, some religions seem almost tailor-made for it).

I think more people should realize how the different "worlds" were initially defined:

First world: USA, NATO countries
Second world: USSR, Warsaw Pact
Third world: Undeveloped or underdeveloped puppet or neutral countries in South America, Africa, and Asia

It's transparently nothing but a way the USA used to rank itself and its allies first by definition, for political reasons rather than economic.

If you were a child in, perhaps, the 1970s, that would be understandable. However, the sheer amount of coercion and silent censorship done in the 50s and 60s, by both companies, the US government, or both working together is terrible to consider. Things like erotic art and novels being destroyed by customs agents on importation (government), the Hays Code (which banned depictions of "miscegenation" or inter-racial relationships, as well as negative depictions of priests, industry), the almost total lack of government transparency before the FOIA (government), and the Hollywood Blacklist of any strong leftist screenwriters (industry).

Most of this was chipped away at or pushed aside in the 1960s, but if someone grew up before or during that time, they didn't live in a utopia of free speech by any means. Many of these things still persist -- the modern MPAA was created to update the Hays Code. It threw away some measures, but kept the strong attitude toward nudity that can only be described as a desperate, psychologically-sick fear of sexuality, especially female sexuality. The result has been the actual inability of many filmmakers to portray normal, equal relationships and to instead have a constant stream of stripper and prostitute characters for their nudity (since, while female nudity will merit an R, open female sexuality might bump the film up to an un-marketable NC-17). Such is censorship.

Maybe they're opposed to it because it would only involve their own power and supremacy being reduced. Just a thought.