Authoritarian styles

I see your point on the 'cover-up' issue. Yes, that is more authoritarian, but then by those standards so are the corporations that expect employees to cover-up poor business practices, hide information from shareholders and consumers, etc. as well as require employees sign non-compete and non-disclosure clauses in their contracts.

I am willing to be see both systems as authoritarian, but it is a very different sort of authoritarianism than what might be found in Iran today.

Uranus1, yeah, google is what I've got for now. I'm open minded to being enlightened by you and others.

Your emo response is rather telling. Btw, I'm not an atheist. Those who know me and my posts will tell you otherwise.

Back on topic - what about the suppression of years of abuse by priests that's coming to light in recent years? That's what I meant by authoritarian in the sense that directions from the top are not questioned, any problems raised are covered up? What is the different perception here?

Ok, "covered up" may not be a good word. Information withheld for the greater good, perhaps? That is acceptable, depending on what the bigger picture is, you know.

eaglemmanuel--wow, a google search. How inventive. When was the last time someone was arrested in the Vatican city and imprisoned following a trial for what might be called a moral offense (i.e. homosexuality, blasphemy, etc.)? How exactly is authoritarianism practiced. Sounds like your issue (and that of your atheist website) isn't about authoritarianism, its a bigoted attitude towards the Catholic Church. Not content with freely holding your own beliefs, you look to attack others for having theirs and then accuse them of oppressing you.

but majority here does not mean who can gather the most on the street and mindset those who are watching outside. What about those peace-loving majority who practice their right through elections?

Those street actions is the way of the ancient time.

Uranua1, not authoritarian? What about this? -

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/13/authoritarian-church-denies-other-churches-are-fully-christian.htm

Although, most of the google searches I did resulted in links stating that Vatian City was autocratic. I suppose it can be an example of how such a state can have a positive impact on its neighbours - but nb: an importangt distinguishing factor is its size (a couple of blocks, as you say) - smaller countries are easier to govern (or control, if you will), esp if the citizens are of one mind - well, almost, save for the rumblings of discontent about certain issues which now have to be more transparent.

The problem is in multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-religious societies, which is almost everywhere. For the leadership of the country not to respect its people's differences and manage that for mutual respect, is a disaster waiting to happen. The onus is on the stronger party to take the first step/lead.

“Relationships-of all kinds-are like sand held in your hand. Held loosely, with an open hand, the sand remains where it is. The minute you close your hand and squeeze tightly to hold on, the sand trickles through your fingers. You may hold onto some of it, but most will be spilled. Held loosely, with respect and freedom for the other person, it is likely to remain intact. But hold too tightly, too possessively, and the relationship slips away and is lost.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/relationships-of_all_kinds

I'm not Catholic, but Pope Benedict is hardly authoritarian in the same way the Ayatollah is. Vatican City is a couple of blocks, it doesn't block facebook, google, outside news channels, etc., and last I checked it isn't looking to build nukes to intimidate its neighbors. Nor does the pope summarily execute people for violating Catholic law.

Authoritarian regimes are bad. Period. They strip people of their humanity by denying them their right to think for themselves.

benefits of authoritarian leaderships : Nil ( They end up taking all their subjects for a ride and enriching themselves on the money of the public and kick backs). They say the egyptian despot has stashed away sooo much outside the country that he does not know which all places it is stashed

The problem I see with Russia is that too much power is vested in certain individuals.

Concentration of power like this is detrimental to a democracy and it has become more of an authoritarian state.

Liberty and democracy is always preferable.

Research has shown that as far as autocracies go, monarchies last the longest and limited party autocracies such as egypt last the least.

Just as a matter of interest, how would you regard Russia ?

We as a country are in a mess because of democracy but considering the alternative, I prefer our current mess.

WK, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending), it's still alive and well, even in developed countries, even though cleverly masked as something else. I suppose it's a balance that is acceptable to its people.

Authoritarianism sounds like the sort of thing that should have been left behind in the 16th century

The pope, ayatollah khomeni, Somalia, Saudi. All examples of religious dictatorships that have no place in modern human thinking and sense