Not according to this evangelical administration (meshed w/the neo-cons). Military might is their "hand of God." Or so they think. It gives them warm fuzzys to know that "God is on their side." That way they can "justify" anything they want. "See, God! See! Looky, looky! We are killing in your name!"
How does government mess with Church? Churches don't pay taxes even though they raise a ton of income. Government doesn't regulate when you can hold a mass, a wedding or a funeral. Who's stopping you from putting the Lord's Prayer on the walls in your business? There is no law against that. Do you believe you should have the right to fire/not hire an employee based on their religion or lack of one? Honestly I don't see the big problem that you seem to. Maybe you can give us specific examples of where the Seperation did some real damage?
Yeah, and? Why did those people come to work for you? So, they can join YOUR RELIGION? Or to work? Now, if you purposely setup a business that sole purpose is YOUR RELGION, then maybe you have a point. But, what is your business about? Selling Bibles? Or selling car parts? It just depends. Also, it's fine if you let your employees bring in religious items and keep it at their desk. And vice-versa. That's personal. But for you to say, "Everyone must abide by MY religious rules..." Well, that's kinda extreme, don't ya think? Rocket River, I understand the issue about "my business." An interesting issue might be to take up the ACLU on this. They may defend you if you setup a business that is solely Christian. Like a Christian book store. Equal opportunity employment comes into play. But the employess must sign off on the dotted line as well. So, you might have something there.
Again, that depends on who you listen to. David Duke could, no doubt, quote Bible passages that support his racist, bigoted tendencies. Popes used the Bible and Christianity to start the Crusades in the name of eradicating the "infidels" who didn't believe in Christ. Some leaders in the Muslim religion are corrupt and warlike, but that should not impugne the motivations of the vast majority of Muslims who believe in peace and justice.
Andy, I am in agreement with you. I think they are both questionable at best. However the poverty in the Middle East and the lack of education has caused the Muslim faith to be used as a catalyst for terrorists, and religios zealots. The Muslim faith is fine in the USA where people are free to think for themselves. But in Iran or Saudi where you are hammered with this religios crap from your parents, your church, your government and your school it makes it very hard for free flowing ideas to move. Thus the backwards nature of most of these cultures. Not too many theocracies are pillars of the world economy. DD
I agree that they aren't getting wiped off the face of Pakistan...............but the trend is against them rather than for them. Here is more about Mr. Raza <a HREF="http://www.digital-daily.com/editorial/nexgen-history/">NexGen: "Clean" Processor</a> <i>Atiq Raza was born in Pakistan, in the family of a talented self-tought radio engineer and this had a great effect on its life - on finishing the school he left for London to master electronic engineering at a college. On his graduation in 1972 he came back to his motherland which wasn't though an ideal place to build up a hi-tech career. He found a job in Telephone Industries of Pakistan and worked there for 6 years watching how his country was turning into a scene of action for religious fanatics and armed gangsters (or even both in one). As a result, at the age of 30 Raza with his wife and child migrated to the US in 1978 where he enrolled first in the University of Oregon and then later Stanford University. Once again it was a radio electronics department. His further career went through different companies - Synergetics, Trilogy, VLSI Technology. At the same time he was involved in public affairs working for a local community as he felt obliged to give something back to this country: it wasn't even a Pakistani community - when English people left India long time ago they divided it into two states - Pakistan and India, and Atiq tried to overcome that split, though from the USA: "We also created TiE (The IndUS Entrepreneurs) organisation with Kanwal Rekhi, Suhas Patil and and Prabkhu Goel taking an active role. I wasn't that active but I emphasized there should be no dividing line between Indians and Pakistanis. Whenever a Pakistani came to me, I told them also we should remain completely united with Indian organisations and that is the way I have operated for the last 22 years in the United States". No wonder that the "continental" line went through the Raza's career in the USA. And in 1988 his acquaintance, Rajvir Singh, suggested he work for a newly created Indian startup called NexGen founded by Thampy Thomas and financed by Compaq and ASCII (there was about 20-30% of Indians and Pakistanis among the engineers). Thomas had a trivial plan - to make clones of Intel's i836 and PCs around it. That was a real adventure - as Vinod Khosla from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers recalls later - when that investment company joined financing NexGen in 1990 (right at the time when Raza became CEO), they even lacked for money for current weekly payments..............</i> I understood some of the issues to be: 1) Religion was the thing that in common for the various parts of Pakistan, but little else. The Durand line that divided Pakistan & Afghanistan separated Pashtuns/Pathans/Pashtoons from each other. Those in Pakistan ended up with Punjabis, Sindhs, Balochis and Bangladeshis...... while those in Afghanistan ended up with Tajiks and other ethinic groups. <a HREF="http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Durand-Line">Durand Line</a> 2) The physical separation of West Pakistan from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) was just <i>unnatural</i>. Differences in languages didn't help the situation. 3) The military took an early role in political events in Pakistan and never seems far away even when politicians are in charge. 4) The theme of "Purity" for the Muslim was sometimes taken a step too far and became a driving focus for things such as gaining control over all of Kashmir. 5) With the breakup of the British Empire looming over the horizon......there was the feeling that Muslims would be oppressed if they stayed in a large country with the Hindu majority on the Subcontinent. If you like, I can go through the legacy of: * Sir Syed Ahmad Khan * Allama Iqbal * Muhammad Ali Jinnah but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread. I did come across an interesting quote: <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India97/pakistan/nation.builder/">Jinnah: Pakistan's founding father</a> <i>.........Jinnah, who by most accounts was not a particularly religious man, called for equal rights for all Pakistani citizens without regard to their religion. In his inaugural speech as first governor general of Pakistan, Jinnah said: 'You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state." But Jinnah would not live to see the development of his fledging country. He died of tuberculosis just 13 months after the formation of Pakistan. His vision of a secular government was never fully realized, either, with disputes between religious groups marring much of Pakistan's brief history. And later, many of his followers disputed the degree to which he was committed to a secular government. .........</i> 6)) Hindus held many of the <i>Civil Service</i> type of jobs and that hurt Pakistan during the partition - exodus post WW II. 7) West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were a bit more agrarian and India ended up with some production facilities that the others lacked. If one looks at various countries in East Asia that started with limited resources - production capability post WW II and compares their progress to that achieved by Pakistan in the past 50 years, then Pakistan's problems seem to go beyond that of limited productation capacity post WW II. Currently in Pakistan: The military is oppressing people in the Punjab: <a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/pakistan0704/4.htm">HRW Summary</a> There is a simmering revolt in Balochistan with conflict between the local citizens and the military: <a HREF="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-8-2004_pg3_6">VIEW: Baloch insurgency rekindling</a> <i>Talibanization</i> efforts in the NWFP: <a HREF="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg7_51"> Taliban-like policies in NWFP loom large</a> After the attempts to kill Musharraf last winter, he has become somewhat reclusive inside Pakistan for fear of other attempts to assassinate him. Yet, there is still the issue of Kashmir and getting it completely from India so it can become part of Pakistan (<i>Land of the Pure</i>) and save it from <i>mistreatment</i> by the Indian Hindus.
Here's the deal, though, Andy...the Bible DIRECTLY refutes those views that David Duke talks about. the church couldn't use the Bible...they used illiteracy to say, "yeah..that's what the bible says...that's the ticket!!" and even that was about a grab for land and wealth. if I am to be a Christ-follower, I'm left with his words...which are, "look, anyone can love their families or those that love them...but i'm telling you to go farther...to love even your enemies." and then you read of Christ's life...and how he reached out to others with love, even as they were treating him like utter dog mess. i'm not trying to impugn anyone. i'm just asking the question. i read the koran and i don't see "forgive your enemy" there. i just don't. am i not lookign in the right places?? seriously...i'm not trying to be sarcastic...I just don't see it, and i've read through the Koran on more than a few occassions. it calls for an eye for an eye...a tooth for a tooth...which is EXACTLY what Christ referenced before saying, "i'll tell you something different...love your enemies." that's all i'm saying. i'm not doubting there are people of the muslim faith who are full of love...and grace...and compassion. i'm not doubting that at all...because i know it to be true. i'm saying that the world, particuarly the western world, is looking at islam and saying, "please show us...please reassure us that this isn't the teaching of the Koran!" and don't just tell me...show me, as well. show me where mohammed says, respond to those who persecute you with peace...and love. because that's not at all the model i'm seeing from mohammed. not trying to turn this into a holy war...i'm just being honest about my questions.
No offense, but I know how to use Google, thank you. From your list, in my opinion, number 6 and number 7 are the some of the strongest reasons why Pakistan ended up being so much more backwards than India. #6 in your list was so bad that most of the civil service was filled with Britishers that they had to beg to stay as a stop gap until more people were trained. Pakistan, especially East Pakistan had nearly nothing that you would consider essential for a "modern" state. The reason why I suggest you read that book is because it shows how much more industrialized and developed India was than Pakistan. It also goes into the reasons why Muslims until the latter part of British rule did not bother getting a "proper" western education. Re: Military opression- The problem is not just the military, Pakistan desperately needs land reforms that India carried out at the begining of its existence but Pakistan never took seriously. Search on Google about it. Pakistani land owners, especially in the NWFP and Balochistan have private "security forces" that can and do do exactly what the army is doing, but you'll never hear about some families being roughed up by your average landowner (not that it's acceptable, but I'm just saying that it's something that many peasant farmers put up with without the army involved). Re: Baloch insurgency- It's something that needs to be addressed before the current government's vision of developing Balochistan by means of the Gwadar port is realized. Gwadar's port is in being built, but investors are holding out on investment in the area until they see how things play out. Re: Talibanization in the NWFP- The MMA was voted into office, the people brought it upon themselves. If they don't like it, they can vote them out of office. If the central government gets involved, then people will complain that Musharraf is power hungry, anti-Islam, an American tool, an absolute dictator, etc.
Come on, at least 5. I'm an atheist and I get no love? Of course, it isn't up to me to say whether I come off as hostile.
Don't think I knew you were atheist, although you don't come off the same way. I dont' agree with some things you say, but I think you definitely understand religions better than the 4 atheists I know.
Well, first of all, you need to define enemy. Who is the enemy? Second of all, Muhammad always supported peace. People who tried to kill him, murder him in war that came to him for forgiveness were accepted. Love your neighbour and all that stuff, it's the same in Islam. I'll make it very clear: Muslims are only allowed to be hostile towards people who want to rid the world of Muslims and act on it. Throughout history, Muslims have lived with Jews, Christians, etc.. The only thing that has never been allowed is the worship of more than one God in public. Islam is mainly Qura'an, but a very important part of it is the "Hadith", which is everything Muhammad said, or the "Sunnah", which refers to acting EXACTLY the way Muhammad (PBUH) acted. MadMax, give me an example of "loving your enemy"and I'll show you that Islam has the same standards regarding that. BTW, for anyone interested in Islam and the prophet, I highly recommend a movie, starring Anthony Quinn "The Message" or "Al Rissalah".. It's quite old, but has been re-released on DVD, and it is extremely accurate and clarifies a lot fo things for those who are interested. I really really think you guys should watch it so you can see how a true Muslim should act. One thing that I found interesting is when the prophet and his "sahaba" escabed from Mecca due to all the torture they recieved, and came across a Christian king.. When one of the Muslims explained Islam to the Christian king, the king drew a thin linei n the sand with his stick and said "The difference between you and I is as thin as this line." (may not be exact). He then allowed them to stay in the kingdom and live freely.
i really wish you would stop including me in people that you "know" And I understand more about religion than probably "think".
Think of it this way. If, on a scale of 1 to 10, America is a 5 in terms of freedom, and every other country is a five as well, then you are gettign a 5 wherever you go. Let's take my model now. I live in Dubai. If MY freedom in Dubai is a 7, and my freedom in every other country is a 3, then on average my freedom is a 5 as well. It doesn't quite work that way, but if I decide that I want to live in your country (let's say France grants me a 3 in freedom), then I should be fine with that. France wants to stay french, so in exchange for me entring France and reaping the benefits of that country that french nationals would otherwise get, I get less freedom. Do you own a home and live with someone? If so, don't you think that you should be treated with a little respect when you're home? That respect may come in many ways - a big greeting when youc ome home, a kiss on the cheek, maybe a anice home cooked meal, maybe you are allowed to watch what you want on TV. But when you're on your HOMECOURT, you deserve somethign more.
Really? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there unless there is some kind of statistic to show it. However, here's what I think: The large majority of Muslims are in the Middle East and Indonesia. I think more of these people really include Islam in their life than Christians do in theirs. OFCOURSE, it's not every single Christian or every single Muslim that does this. But I'm saying a large chunk. The only proof I have, however, is what I've observed. As for your second point, I agree it would derail this topic even further, so I'll just say this and you can e-mail me or start a new thread: I think Christianity and Islam is quite close, it's just that is more attached to amotion than Islam. Islam deals with scheduled prayer times, specific interest rates for charity, and strict laws. Christianity is more connected to things like love your neighbour, love your enemy, be generous, be gracious, don't be envious. The important thing, I think, is that they share the same goal, but get there in different ways.
Honestly i cannot think of one right off Honestly this is a tangent more than the original intent here it was not so much the Government .. .as much as just the general public's . . . perceptions/attitude toward religious people. Rocket River
That is the difference between US and many other country. In any country there will be class of people who enjoys wealth and freedom more than others, but in western styled democracy the underprivileged class can still enjoy basic HUMAN RIGHTS. That is why it is important to keep the rights of the few. The founding fathers were just brilliant when they created the constitution. I doubt with the politicians today we would be able to get anything remotely close. That is the reason why seperation of regligion and state is of paramount importance. If we go down the slippery slope of allowing the dominant religion to control the government, we might someday see the type of government we see in so many muslim states. That is definately not something I want to see in my lifetime. Mark
