Lahore's only Hindu temple razed

[Seeker]

"I'm not flaming you. I am pointing out that you seem to need to have your ideas reflected in government and they must not have any of theirs or you will get upset."

If his idea that he wants 'reflected in government' is that we not have other people's religious beliefs forced on us, and the other side's idea is to force us to abide by their corrupt morality, then yes, there is a substantial diffence.

It's not hypocritical if one side is clearly morally superior to the other.

Your argument is disingenous because 'their idea' (i.e. bronze age sheep shankers) vs 'Corts' idea' (the Enlightenment ideal of individual freedom) are not at all equivalent.

Sidenotes: Hindu proseltyizers....how did Hindu religion reach Bali and Indonesia, south vietnam etc? Musta got there somehow.

Confucian religious intolerance: LOL this is obviously from someone who isn't living in a Confucian country....Confucians could give a **** about your private beliefs as long as you obey the state and are socially harmonious. Most of the historical intolerance of Confucianism in Korea and Japan was a reaction against Buddhist monasticism, but for secular reasons. Confucianism is the secular 'religion' I've ever seen.

Buddhist intolerance: It is true that there has been Buddhist intolerance. The early history of Tibet included bloody struggles between shamanists and different buddhist schools. But on the whole Buddhism and its arrival in those countries' where it is practiced was REMARKABLY more peaceful than the similar movements of Christianity and Islam. Compare the arrival of Buddhism to Korea, Japan, or Thailand to the arrival of Christianity to Germany via Charlemagne, or of Islam to India or Persia. The closest Christianity comes is the spread of Christianity to Russia (Kievan Rus).

Taoist Intolerance: I really can't imagine what this would look like...? Violent people getting banished or something?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I honestly can't see any good coming out of Islamic countries. They are the source of terrorism in the world

Can't blame you for thinking this, if you don't read any non-US news.

Ever heard of the LTTE? FARC? Shining Path? Bajrang Dal? Aum Shinrikyo? IRA? ETA?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What are you talking about? There are some good signs that the Hindus got the positional notation from the Chinese. For example, the abacus.

That made my day... You guys haven't even discovered alphabet yet

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Mr. Harley
LOTM - to avoid a total threadjack, just two little points.

'Secondly, and more germanely - if it was acceptable to seize the land of the Arabs who left - some voluntarily, some in fear of the Arab militaries, who were not notoriously gentle with civilians, and some who were driven out because the Jewish pseudo-military forces wanted to, and from a military aspect needed to, secure certain areas - then should the various property of Jews seized when they left various parts of Europe ahead of the Nazi occupations NOT be returned. They "voluntarily" left. '

Did the Germans use the property for housing Germans who had fled Jewish states? Of course not. BTW, most Jews have not returned to their properties in Europe. Theyve been COMPENSATED. Which is precisely what will need to happen wrt Arabs.


"Secondly, ask you Bedoiun in the Negev, who have fought for Isreal, about the seizure of property. No, the property was not "seized". Their villages were not recognized, therefore their land has no "owners", and now it is being "developed" by various entities, including the government, that are all Jewish. "


I dont defend every action of the Israeli govt. Govt do wrong things with land, even here in the states. If the beduin have a good case, they should take it to the Israeli courts.


"Lastly, there has been no Arab property seized for the settlements on the West Bank. If, after building the settlement, you then build roads across other people's lands with no compensation, you take their water rights, and you bulldoze their olive groves as security zones for the settlement you chose to build, I guess you can argue you didn't "take" anyones land. Right."


The settlements were built on State land - under the Ottoman empire most land that was not cultivated (or built on) was retained by the state IIUC, and was allocated when there was a demand for it. This land was still considered state land under the UK mandate, and under Jordan. Its that land which Israel has built on. IIUC thats also where theyve build roads. If theyve taken private land for roads, of course they should compensate. The olive groves issue is a seperate one, and one where settlers have often defied the state. Water rights is a different, and complex issue.

"You'll rebut, I'll post, and we can hijack the entire thread. If you want, we can post our own thread, though we've had this argument before - remember the water rights one where I posted from a Jewish sorce, and I am NOT talking about the historian you challeneged, who reviewed that attitude of the Israeli government's so-called negotiators. Sadly, though, no matter what facts I post I am not going to change your mind, and you have yet to find a fact-based cite that will convince me that the ethnic cleansing of Isreal in 1948, nor the administation of the occupied territories, are justified - except by Zionist principles, which are utterly intolerant. Note I have always granted the necessity of the 1948 and 1968 conflicts - just not the actions taken against the civilian populations"

Here youve got me confused. The 1948 conflict was to establish the State of Israel. Zionist principles are simply that Israel should exist as a refuge and homeland for the Jewish people. Im not sure what Zionist principles you are therefore referring to.

and, btw, there was no conventional war in the ME in 1968 - it was in 1967.

I agree that we wont convince each other here. Ive read a good bit on the conflict (i intend to read Michael Oren on the 6 day war next) I suggest reading more on the actual history of the conflict.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Downs and scrimmage

"Camp's contributions to early football included the introduction of the scrimmage in place of the rugby scrum"

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What gives Christians the impression that they have a monopoly over morality, and why do they assume that atheists are immoral?

I live by a strict personal morality, which probably overlaps substantially with Christian morality, but don't need the fear of God to enforce it. In fact, seeing as I don't expect any reward for attempting to adhere to those principles, nor any beyond-this-world punishment for ignoring them, I don't think that's such bad going.

If people only behave themselves because they are frightened of divine retribution, why is that better than someone who does so out of nothing but principled morality, and respect and decency towards fellow humans?

Couple of observations:

A. I'm not "afraid" of God in that sense. Nor is the reward for a good life purely post-death. You need to learn something about the diversity of Xian theology before you make gross generalizations. Start by looking up "mysticism" in some place other than the civilopedia. The mystic school has suffered in the West, but that's what happens after a thousand-plus years of corrupt theocracy corrected by a gang of well-meaning but ignorant revolutionaries (just my opinion).

B. Rules and principles are the beginning of morality, not the end. I don't believe that you're necessarily immoral, it's just that I cannot see how your morality can be anything but gibberish without an end or foundation. You are following rules with no purpose. You may very well be doing the right thing, at least at times, but without a good understanding of why you do them. Not only is that not very sensible, it has little strength of its own. I suspect that, bereft of religious folk to compete with in games of "Holier than thou, but not holy," like the one you've just demonstrated, the whole facade would fall apart. "Principled morality" becomes just another God obeyed for no reason, a weak one you've dressed up in the clothes of Voltaire on a frame of cardboard.

C. I might add that, in all fairness, the atheists restarted the tired old religious flamewar for this particular thread. We might be "imposing our beliefs on the rest of you," etc., but we weren't the ones who spouted lame remarks about how religion needs to be destroyed, archaic old superstitions, good riddance....

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
C. I might add that, in all fairness, the atheists restarted the tired old religious flamewar for this particular thread. We might be "imposing our beliefs on the rest of you," etc., but we weren't the ones who spouted lame remarks about how religion needs to be destroyed, archaic old superstitions, good riddance....

I'll have you know that I'm way crazier than an atheist. I may have criticized religion in this thread, but that doesn't mean I'm aligned with the opposite of religion.

[Seeker]

"I suspect that, bereft of religious folk to compete with in games of "Holier than thou, but not holy," like the one you've just demonstrated, the whole facade would fall apart."

Yes we were so much better off when the religious ran everything and religious principles were the source of law.

[Elok]

Not really. Did you actually read my whole post (the one containing the words "corrupt theocracy")? I never said that fair and secular government is a bad thing. There's a difference between moral and legal imperatives.

Lori: Sorry. What should I mark you down as, for future stereotyping convenience? "Way crazier than atheist" has a certain ring, but it's not concise...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Originally posted by Straybow
How dare those modern Christians express their ideology within the political arena and process instead of bowing to yours without question! How dare they trouble your mind with their concepts of morality! You are so oppressed!

What gives Christians the impression that they have a monopoly over morality, and why do they assume that atheists are immoral?

I live by a strict personal morality, which probably overlaps substantially with Christian morality, but don't need the fear of God to enforce it. In fact, seeing as I don't expect any reward for attempting to adhere to those principles, nor any beyond-this-world punishment for ignoring them, I don't think that's such bad going.

If people only behave themselves because they are frightened of divine retribution, why is that better than someone who does so out of nothing but principled morality, and respect and decency towards fellow humans?

... Exactly what ideology am I supposed to be insisting that Christians bow to? I've nothing against Christians, Muslims or anyone else getting on quietly with their thing. What I object to is attempts to forcefully subject me to their ideology.

• Never said Xtians had a monopoly. You are the one saying Xtians shouldn't be in the debate, which kinda sounds like a claim of monopoly! (What NYE said)

• I'll take your word on your personal moral character. But what about the next guy? What standard should apply to him?

• Lots of people only behave when they'll get their butts kicked (socially or legally or militarily) if they don't. Fact of life. See above.

• In other words, you object to us imposing our morality on you, but not to you imposing your morality on us. (What NYE said)

---

Now back to the thread: There is room for complaint the other way, too. For examples of Hindu persecutions, take the laws either passed recently by the BJP. They not only wish to bar foreign Christians, but also indigenous Christians from "missionary" work.

Christians have been in southern India (Mysore) since the very beginning. There are credible claims that Thomas (the doubter) traveled there via the spice traders and established churches that functioned independently until connected to the Syrian Orthodox several centuries later.

Some observers say that BJP would like to pass similar laws restraining the larger minorities (Buddhists and Muslims) but lack the political muster.

But none of this can justify the corruption exhibited in the OP. The real question is: will the government punish the responsible parties? Does their law even have the teeth to do so?

[Edit: BJP]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Seeker
"I'm not flaming you. I am pointing out that you seem to need to have your ideas reflected in government and they must not have any of theirs or you will get upset."

If his idea that he wants 'reflected in government' is that we not have other people's religious beliefs forced on us, and the other side's idea is to force us to abide by their corrupt morality, then yes, there is a substantial diffence.

It's not hypocritical if one side is clearly morally superior to the other.

Your argument is disingenous because 'their idea' (i.e. bronze age sheep shankers) vs 'Corts' idea' (the Enlightenment ideal of individual freedom) are not at all equivalent.

Load of bunk.

Morally superior according to who?

Bronze age sheep shankers?

Many Xtians are fully for the ideals of the Enlightenment, individual liberty, etc. Some are not, and are not very tolerant of the views of others.

Some athiests, and other forms of non-believers, are completely comfortable with tolerance of different viewpoints, like God being mentioned in the Constitution say, or moments of silence at the beginning of school days, while others are not.

Some atheists are every bit as dogmatic, close minded and intolerant as the most severe cases among religious fundies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
As far as I know , the abacus never found its way into India.

Right, but the abacus uses the positional notation. The abacus was invented in the really ancient times, and the positional notation some time before that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordShiva
That made my day... You guys haven't even discovered alphabet yet

Ha. You don't need alphabet for mathematics.

[Drake Tungsten]

Buddhist intolerance: It is true that there has been Buddhist intolerance. The early history of Tibet included bloody struggles between shamanists and different buddhist schools. But on the whole Buddhism and its arrival in those countries' where it is practiced was REMARKABLY more peaceful than the similar movements of Christianity and Islam. Compare the arrival of Buddhism to... Japan

You mean the struggles between Buddhist-supporting clans (Soga) and Shinto-supporting clans (Mononobe, Nakatomi) that led to the tossing of the first Buddhist statue in Japan into a river, a pair of wars between the Mononobe and Soga that eventually brought the Soga to power and the eventual overthrow of the Soga and the butchering of their leader in front of the Empress?

And that's pretty tame compared to some of the other Buddhist-related violence in Japanese history.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Right, but the abacus uses the positional notation. The abacus was invented in the really ancient times, and the positional notation some time before that.

Can it be then said that the Chinese and Indians independently and without any contact discovered positional notation , the difference being that the Chinese did not develop it into a full-fledged number system , whereas the Indians did ? China and India were very closed off to each other for a long time , with both being too smug to ever visit any country other than their home country . Chinese Buddhist monks had to risk the wrath of the Emperor to visit Indian monasteries and universities to get an "original" Buddhist education .