its no laughing matter anywhere. whetherits robertson in US, MMA in Pakistan, wahabis in saudi arabia.
seperation of church/mosque/temple/ and state rocks and thats what everyone should be focusing on.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
the level of political clout that hawkish, war mongering, messianic form of organized religion has in america is sadly no laughing matter.
I agree, and sadly other countries also have religions with undue influence that can be described with equally unflattering terms.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
its no laughing matter anywhere. whetherits robertson in US, MMA in Pakistan, wahabis in saudi arabia.
seperation of church/mosque/temple/ and state rocks and thats what everyone should be focusing on.
I agree, and sadly, other countries also have religions with undue influence that can be described with equally unflattering terms.
saudi arabia isnt a democracy, so thats not a valid comparison. MMA hardly decides elections in Pakistan on a regular basis so thats not one either. The correct comparison I guess would be Iran, with the robertsons etc playing (atleast as far as the republican party is concerned) the same role as Khamenei.
Rahi baat seperation of church and state ki, Im not so sure thats the issue. You cant mandate that religious people not have political opinions, and you cant mandate that religious people not largely agree on specific political issues, and you cant mandate that they not organize together and leverage their numbers.
I think its sad that their religion makes them so hawkish, but I dont see it as a systemic flaw .
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
And others would say it is sad that some people's religion have God-sanctioned war built into their holy books and prohpets as warriors. I see no reason to single out the Christians in America, other than they are superbly hypocritical and have influence with the current adminstration.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
the only reason Im singling out Christians in america is that the other groups you speak about arent likely to endorse candidates running for the american presidency. no need to get so defensive 
you call them a joke, and yet object when others do the same. lets be on-topic and criticize war mongering, hawkish, intolerant messianic Christians all we want without needing to repeatedly cite saudi arabia etc.
unless ofcourse you have candidates vying for a Muslim preacher’s endorsement you want to talk about?
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
lockjaw, the format of government is a diff topic, my view is that influence of any religion in any of these cases is not productive or positive.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
although muslims did endorse bush in 2000.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
lockjaw, the format of government is a diff topic, my view is that influence of any religion in any of these cases is not productive or positive.
religion influences political opinions. in no country in the world is there any law banning religious views to colour political views, nor should there be.
im not convinced that religion never plays a productive or positive role in government. the laws that exist in the states are not entirely secular, there is no secular reason for why polygamy is outlawed, or prostitution is outlawed. for me, those are positive things.
although muslims did endorse bush in 2000.
and they were right to do so if he appealed to them more. my issue is not with religious groups endorsing candidates.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
religion influences political opinions. in no country in the world is there any law banning religious views to colour political views, nor should there be.
im not convinced that religion never plays a productive or positive role in government. the laws that exist in the states are not entirely secular, there is no secular reason for why polygamy is outlawed, or prostitution is outlawed. for me, those are positive things.
please notice what I said..let me highlight a key part
lockjaw, the format of government is a diff topic, my view is that influence of any religion in **any of these cases **is not productive or positive.
so I specifically meant us, pak and saudi arabia, and the influnce of religious right is not positive in any of these countries' govts. now we may say that yes due to their forcethere have been a few good things, sure, but I am focused on the overall impact which by no means is positive in the case of these 3 countries.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
please notice what I said..let me highlight a key part
so I specifically meant us, pak and saudi arabia, and the influnce of religious right is not positive in any of these countries' govts. now we may say that yes due to their forcethere have been a few good things, sure, but I am focused on the overall impact which by no means is positive in the case of these 3 countries.
ah i see. i was thinking we're actually on topic :p. there is no real relevance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to the topic of influence of christian fundamentalists on American politics, unless we're extremely apologetic about discussing/disparaging such Christians, and cannot do so without saying "others are bad too, there there"
the religious right in Pakistan hasnt politically shaped policy as much as policy has been shaped then religion-ised. the only significant success of the religious right as far as policy is concerned, is the banning of music on public transport in NWFP. on a larger scale, i dont think thats either positive or negative. i think it just "is". that and hudood ordinance.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
ah i see. i was thinking we're actually on topic :p. there is no real relevance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to the topic of influence of christian fundamentalists on American politics, unless we're extremely apologetic about discussing/disparaging such Christians, and cannot do so without saying "others are bad too, there there"
I started a the topic and my intent was to discuss the relevance of religious groups on politics. at may seem apologetic to those who are carrying some chip on the shoulder.
its rather amusing that while you get into it in post#8 now you are wondering whether we are on topic.
there is no apology its is giving other examples to say that undue inlfuence of religion on state in other areas has been negative as well.
if you see that as "others are bad too there thre" then you are not reading it right
the religious right in Pakistan hasnt politically shaped policy as much as policy has been shaped then religion-ised. the only significant success of the religious right as far as policy is concerned, is the banning of music on public transport in NWFP. on a larger scale, i dont think thats either positive or negative. i think it just "is". that and hudood ordinance.
however you slice it, impact of religous groups or policies religion-ised to appease certain segment, it has a negative impact.
thats it.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
I started a the topic and my intent was to discuss the relevance of religious groups on politics. at may seem apologetic to those who are carrying some chip on the shoulder.
perhaps it should be clearer from the outset that it was a general discussion rather than the specific influence of ( christian) groups in (american) politics wrt Abortion. you only mentioned the religious influenced in other palces when I was particularly negative about the christian groups in America. Which gives the perception that its reacting to my post rather than the focus of the discussion all along.
[quote]
its rather amusing that while you get into it in post#8 now you are wondering whether we are on topic.
[/quote]
Im not sure which one is #8 in the new thread. however the context in the discussion for me has largely been america-centric, even to the point of misunderstanding what you were talking about.
[quote]
there is no apology its is giving other examples to say that undue inlfuence of religion on state in other areas has been negative as well.
if you see that as "others are bad too there thre" then you are not reading it right
[/quote]
would you understand that as the motivation of seminole too, in talking about war mongering prophets in other religions.
I understand you giving examples, I dont find them terribly relevant to American politics, but OK.
[quote]
however you slice it, impact of religous groups or policies religion-ised to appease certain segment, it has a negative impact.
thats it.
[/quote]
thats not saying much. one can appease certain segments, religious or not, and have negative impacts.
Pakistan's support for taleban, and the Kashmiri "freedom fighters" had entirely Pakistani-ideological reasons. You're going to sell political decisions to the people, if they happen to be religious you're likely to cast it in that language. im sure if Pakistani people had a different composition, the same decisions would have been cast in a very different, possibly secular light.
MMA had very little role to play in any of Pakistan's sometimes religiously tinted foreign policy. It has usually been regional pragmatics, so you cant really say that religion has been the agent of change there.
Re: The Negative Influence of Religion on Government [split: abortion must be ]
aside from the specific failures and successes of religion influenced policy, im against excluding religion entirely from government.
religious figures should have no official authority, but its undemocratic to exclude religious ideas from politics. people are religious in some places, and they should have a right to decide that the environment/laws/governance has a certain religious orientation.
that religious influence should be local however, it should not extend beyond the places where such religious laws/policies are popular. which is why the federal system works for Pakistan. if NWFP wants to have taleban-ish laws (which they probably wont next time round) then bismillah. so long as it doesnt affect Karachi, Im happy. ideally it would be even more local.
with the caveat of not wanting laws blatantly against national priorities, like healthcare, education etc. but for example the religious motivation of segregated govt schools is absolutely fine by me, and probably reflects the preferences of the typical Pakistani.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
would you understand that as the motivation of seminole too, in talking about war mongering prophets in other religions.
I was motivated becuase you said "I think its sad that their religion makes them so hawkish". I was pointing out how that comment is disengenuous since other religions have war built into their holy books and practiced by prophets. So you can't single out Christianity for being hawkish. But there is a difference between "warrior" and "war mongering". Warrior only implies "involved in warfare", not war mongering.
[quote]
Pakistan's support for taleban, and the Kashmiri "freedom fighters" had entirely Pakistani-ideological reasons. You're going to sell political decisions to the people, if they happen to be religious you're likely to cast it in that language. im sure if Pakistani people had a different composition, the same decisions would have been cast in a very different, possibly secular light.
[/quote]
Are you kidding? The whole country is based upon religion, how can you say it isn't part of any policy? The Pakistani constitution states that Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan and the the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law. So you can't limit religiously- influenced policy in the Pakistani government to MMA influence.
The religious right in the US repulses me. There are so many things Jesus taught that they totally ignore or even take the opposite position. And that they happen to be among the most hawkish makes no sense whatsoever. Organized religion, especially the leadership, in the US has it ALL WRONG.
Re: abortion must be a deciding factor for voting???
I was motivated becuase you said "I think its sad that their religion makes them so hawkish". I was pointing out how that comment is disengenuous since other religions have war built into their holy books and practiced by prophets. So you can't single out Christianity for being hawkish. But there is a difference between "warrior" and "war mongering". Warrior only implies "involved in warfare", not war mongering.
Right, but why the disclaimer? Did I say that this religion is the only one?
I CAN single out Christianity, because given the topic that was being discussed till that point, Christianity in the Pat Robertson version is the ONLY relevant religion.
please understand that I have no issue with discussing the war mongering nature of other religious groups in principle, it just doesnt make sense in a thread on the abortion issue's impact on the american elections.
[quote]
Are you kidding? The whole country is based upon religion, how can you say it isn't part of any policy? The Pakistani constitution states that Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan and the the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law. So you can't limit religiously- influenced policy in the Pakistani government to MMA influence.
[/quote]
We were speaking of the influence of preachers in the Pat Robertson mould. Yes Pakistani constitution does enshrine Islam, however the ruling class, the policy and decision makers, have NEVER in Pakistan's history been particularly religious, and with the exception of Zia ul Haq, never even attempted to cast themselves in the "religious" leader image.
There is a specific segment in Pakistani politics that does represent the religious parties, and that segment has not had a significant amount of influence in Pakistani foreign policy.
If you wish to dispute this, please be specific. What aspect of Pakistani foreign policy has been motivated by the Quran and Sunnah? Support for Taleban was a way of planting a surrogate state instead of a traditionally hostile neighbour. The only Islamists (and secularists) we support in India are those who happen to be fighting for a piece of land we have a claim on.
We are a country that does not object when China is killing Muslims, but do object when Russia does. Sad, I wish we did, but we dont. Thats because when religion cant be used to justify a tactical foreign policy decision, it simply is discarded.
The one consistent, possibly religiously motivated position Pakistan has is it's opposition to Israel. That is representative of mainstream Pakistani thinking, and not any group that can be labelled the equivalent of "Church".
And if you say Pakistan itself represents the "Church" then you give Pakistan far too much credit :)
[quote]
The religious right in the US repulses me. There are so many things Jesus taught that they totally ignore or even take the opposite position. And that they happen to be among the most hawkish makes no sense whatsoever. Organized religion, especially the leadership, in the US has it ALL WRONG.
[/quote]
Right but you cant deduce a principle from that. Its not fair to say that everything religion induced in government has been bad. There are more than enough hawkish secularists, Christopher Hitchens is one prominent opinion maker.
Nor is it fair to say that everything religion induced is non-representative of the people. If enough people believe that abortion is not allowable (to return to the other topic) why shouldnt they be able to legitlate as such.