Massive Terract campaign in India

[Sirotnikov]

I don't agree with the notion that Christianity has somehow "grown up", because that seems to imply that a religioun should over time become more liberal. That makes no sense if religion is based on some fundamental truths that are never changing.

Yes but we all know that religion is not really based on fundamental truths.

The mystical idea behind different religions is sometimes different, but eventually, look at religion as just another (complex and mystical) form of ideology.

You have the original founder of the religion, that sets it rolling, and then you have different stages of expansion.

You also have a religious authority that slowly changes the religion by patching it with new commands, new interpretations and of course new stories involving the founder.

This allows the religion to slowly morph and adapt to
a) the religious authority's interests
b) the interests of local ruling elite
c) the current circumstances, and timely events, ethics, laws and so on.

Had religion really stayed permanent, it would have been left after few generations, because it would become irrelevant.

I agree with the rest of the analysis until this:

And on a side note, Judaism is far more similar to Islam than Christianity, which is why Jews and Muslims got along so much better with each other than either group got along with Christians until the last 150 years. Judaism of course was forced to develop as a religion seperated from power itself. It will be interesting to see the rise of Judaism as a political force now that it has again become a political alternative.

I would be happy if you expand on that further to explain what you mean.

I do not think Judaism is similar to Islam in its totality, in its strive for expansion, or in its view on power-structures.

The last religion inspired expansion battle is probably the expansion of Jews into Canaan. after that, IIRC, the conquests made by David and Solomon are no longer seen as religious missions but rather personal endeavors of the kings.

Judaism never tried to expand to other people, and always saw itself as a local phenomena. While it shunned other religions developing among "jews" in its territory, it never seeked to "bring the light" to other people by means of force and conversion.

This did not happen under any of Judaism's prominent figures and it has never happened even during times where the Jewish state flourished.

Jewish law is not seen as absolute and is not meant for all humanity. Jews saw themselves as a sect that tries to serve example for the world of god's will, but it is never expected or even wanted that other nations convert or join.


Another point is that Judaism was for the most part developed without temporal power, or in conflict with it. From the early books, both temporal power and (the separate) religious establishments are often corrupt and self interested is core to judaism since its first leaders.

There is always a difference between
- what god actually wants
- what kings do
- what the priests do.

Kings, and levis and prophets come under criticism from total outsiders- the prophets. people who come from the edge of society and are oddball rejected street soothsayers.


The stories teach not to blindly trust establishments because neither official rulers nor official priests carry the real god's word, and they are easily corrupted.

A perfect religious rule is never described. Even figures such as Abraham and Moses had human faults and were criticised.



In any case, the major historical shaping of Judaism is done in the babylonian diaspora, following the fall of the 1st temple, where judaism is far from any sort of temporal power.

After the building of the 2nd temple the religion is brought to writing with the intention of educating the populace and increasing a single persons power and relationship with god.

The fall of the 2nd temple increases the personalization tendency because there is no central place to pray and no organized central authority.

This leads Judaism to become a very spiritual and personal religion.


PS: this really should be sliced into a different thread.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher


Do elaborate, because I'm fairly certain you do not remember.

Canada/Britain did some terrible things to the natives, but they never did have wars with them or incite wars between tribes (to my knowledge, feel free to cite if you do know of some): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

Right off the top of my head I can think of the Red River Rebellion and the North West Rebellion.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Right off the top of my head I can think of the Red River Rebellion and the North West Rebellion.

Wait, you're serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

This was a political event more than anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

Was a simple civil uprising with ~100 people killed total on both sides...

[onodera]

Originally posted by Asher

Nope. You just don't comprehend how pervasive Judaism is in your culture, you seem to think they're separate. They're not completely. You know what the easiest way is to tell? Just answer these questions:

What do you call someone who is an ethnic Jew? Let the answer to this be "A".
What do you call someone who practices Judaism? Let the answer to this be "B".

Does A = B?

Jew, Judaist
What do you call a man, Asher, who was born to a Jewish mom and a Jewish dad, but became a Scientologist?

[BeBMan]

Stupid?

[onodera]

Originally posted by BeBro
Stupid?

I knew someone would say that.

[Zevico]

Asher:
1. I hope you will forgive me if I briefly repeat the point that proving Judaism to be a historical reason that lead to the establishment of the State is not a useful topic for discussion, as the entirety of mankind's history has in some way lead to the establishment of that State (and indeed everything else that has occurred up until this day).
2. A more useful question to ask would be [and I think, but am not sure that this is the topic of discussion] whether the Zionist ideology is a religious ideology.
3. I think I may agree with you in a limited sense. The Zionist ideology is inextricably linked to the Orthodox Jewish faith. As you point out, that link exists by reason of the fact that the core or majority of the Zionist movement (but not the entirety of that movement) has defined the question of Jewish nationhood in terms copied exactly from the Jewish Orthodox faith itself. However, I would not describe the original Zionist movement as religious in anything other than this context. While originally Zionists took the definition of Judaism from the Orthodox, it rejected virtually all of the other principles of the Orthodox faith. Instead Zionists looked to liberalism, socialism or both to form the core of their ideas as to how Israeli society ought to be structured and governed.
4. In order to prove this linkage between Zionism in its original 'secular' form and Orthodox Judaism, we need only look to the Law of Return, a law enacted by the Israeli Parliament early in Israeli history. That law permits Jews to emigrate to the state and automatically receive citizenship (as well as their non-Jewish children or grandchildren, separately or together). Crucially, a Jew who converts to another faith before applying for citizenship is no longer regarded as Jewish for the purpose of the law. The definition of 'Jewish' takes into account only how Orthodox persons identify Jews. Thus Jews for Jesus, who describe themselves as Jews who practise the Jewish faith but believe in the New Testament and Jesus, are not recognised by Israeli law as being Jews for the purpose of the Law of Return, whether they are Jewish converts to that sect or for that matter, if they happen to be non-Jewish converts to it.
5. Thus it can be said that the Jewish faith does play a major part in the Zionist ideology. The 'Law of Return' effectively provides Israeli society with a means of redefining itself in explicitly Jewish religious terms.
6. There are many ways to define the Jewish faith. If utilising the Orthodox definition of Jewish identity in order to establish a nation makes a movement religious, then I suppose you are right in saying that some otherwise secular persons who identify as Zionists are in fact 'religious'. Still, I find it difficult to term a movement religious when it explicitly rejects all of the other precepts of the Orthodox faith (or at least some of the interpretations of that faith). While this issue is crucial to the identity of the State, it must be kept in mind that Israel is a state built on secular and liberal Western concepts and ideas. Some of these ideas are antithetical to Orthodox Jewish ideas, just as they are to Christian or Muslim ones.

[Barnabas]

Maimonides also believed that Judaism was much more similar to Islam than to Christianity.

Islam and Judaism are unambiguously monotheistic, only one God, never bow in front of statues ,Christianity isn't because of the trinity, .
(and in the time of maimonides when protestants didn't exist and all christians venerated saints that feeling was much stronger)

There are lots of parellelisms between Judaism and Islam.

[GePap]

Beyond the superficial similarities between orthodox Judaism and Islam (dress codes, dietary laws, lack of worship images), there is what I see as a shared commitment to laws governing daily life based on the religion. Again, you can be a good Christian alone, in a sea of non-Christians, because all you are required to have is your own internal faith that Jesus was the Annoited one and the sacvior of mankind, and that brings salvation.

How can a single Jew alone meet his expected commitments to the covenant between the Hebrew people and God? It is theoretically possible, but terribly difficult at best. Judaism is a religion that is not only about internal faith, but about one's relation to a community. Salvation from God comes to the Jewish people, not to individuals. As a member of the community you have deep religious commitments to each other, commitments that then rule your interactions with those you live in. That is very similar to what you have in Islam, and again, different from what you see in Christianity.

And yes, you are correct Siro in pointing out that many of the crucial theological developments of Judaism happened while it was out of power - but Judaism has remained relevant and survived because it as a religion hasn't stopped defining itself yet, and because internal debate is continuious. Judaism, as a religion focused not on a universal message for all but a way of life for one community, will again adapt to its new circumstances. I think the growth of Haredi parties in Israel points to the possibilities of political Judaism within a self-described Jewish state. While you are correct that Zionism began and mainly is a secular movement, once the Jews are back ruling the holy land, its hard to think that no one will start demanding that the covenant be strictly followed again, to prevent future diasporas.

[Zevico]

The haredi parties in Israel are difficult for me to understand, though I have made no specific research into them other than being a regular reader of Israeli newspapers. If you can point to any sources contradicting what I say here please point them out to me.
Overall, the haredim view the State as a means to make their lives easier as Haredim, and to encourage Jews to live their lives as Haredim. These are their main social and political goals. The State is not holy for them at all--it is a tool.

Of course the Haredim will demand more religion in the State, but it will not be to prevent a future exile as such. It will simply be to make people in Israel more 'Jewish'--to make them live their lives in a manner more fitting to Haredi tastes.

Whether you live in Israel or elsewhere, in effect as a Haredi you regard the exile as on-going. It is a spiritual exile. Only the coming of the Jewish Messiah can effect a change--bring about the 'true' Jewish state and end the spiritual exile.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher




Wait, you're serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

This was a political event more than anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

Was a simple civil uprising with ~100 people killed total on both sides...

Most of the wars between Whites and the Native Americans inhabiting Canada pre-date the American Revolution and often involve tribes currently living in the US as well. By the time of the American Revolution the tribes of what are now Ontario, Quebec, and the rest of eastern Canada had been subdued to the point that as whites appropriated most of their land they were unable to fight back. Certainly you can't deny that your English predecessors paid the Iroquois to fight the Algonquin, Hurons, Mississaugas, and Ojibwe and that the Iroquois were quite effective at decimating those tribes. Since in 1776 we repudiated our English heritage and you Canadians didn't then that that legacy is yours.

Yeah the Canadian wars against their western Indians were rather small, but then the native population of western Canada must have been no more than 10% of that of the western US.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Beyond the superficial similarities between orthodox Judaism and Islam (dress codes, dietary laws, lack of worship images), there is what I see as a shared commitment to laws governing daily life based on the religion. Again, you can be a good Christian alone, in a sea of non-Christians, because all you are required to have is your own internal faith that Jesus was the Annoited one and the sacvior of mankind, and that brings salvation.

...provided you're Protestant, i.e. a relatively recent innovation from the church community. Living in America where the Fundies dominate the news, you're just not aware of what an historical aberration the thing you're describing is. Even if you're factually aware of it, it doesn't impinge on your consciousness much. Even we have to be reminded of it in sermons.

Certainly the Catholics never saw things that way, and as for us...the introduction to the Orthodox Study Bible compares that notion to being a huge fan of democracy while choosing to live in communist China. The Christian faith was originally VERY community-centered, as seen in Acts and the Epistles.

[aneeshm]

The terrorists were trained in and came from Pakistan, and were told to simply massacre as many people as they could before being killed themselves.

Mumbai: The terrorists who attacked Mumbai had a single-point agenda: murder the maximum number of people.

Security and intelligence officials say heavily armed terrorists got off boats at the Gateway of India on Wednesday night and targeted 10 landmark locations. They took over two five-star hotels, the Taj Mahal Palace and Trident-Oberoi, and a Jewish residential complex. The Taj was cleared last on Saturday morning in a hail of bullets and blasts.

In the three nights and three days of the terrorist attack, at least 183 people died and 327 were injured. Of the dead, 20 were policemen and 22 foreigners. The casualty figure could rise.

Shock gave way to grief and anger on Saturday as the country grappled with what has been described as its own “9/11” and investigators zeroed in the people behind the worst terrorist attack on the country.

Sources tell CNN-IBN say the terrorists—two of them British-born Pakistanis and one a Yemeni national— had orders to keep murdering people till they themselves were killed. The terrorists were trained at a camp near Mangla Dam in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasar, the only terrorist arrested for connection with terror attack, has allegedly told investigators that a group of 12 terrorists left Karachi for Mumbai on board a vessel owned by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. Kasar, 21, is a Pakistani.

The terrorists had digital maps of Mumbai and underwent extensive training in sea-b tactics. The Maharashtra Police’s Anti-Terrorist Squad says the terrorists travelled in groups of two and were dropped off in two batches at Sassoon docks and Badhwar Park near the Gateway of India.

The terrorists had fake identification documents, like identity cards of Mumbai colleges. They were armed with heavy weapons: proven by the recovery of 10 AK-56 assault rifles, 10 automatic pistols, two kg of RDX.

Security officials suspect the terrorist were drugged which held them sustain the attacks. The militants were ready to kill and be killed.

They really do hate us more than they love themselves.

[aneeshm]

Arrested terrorist spills all, says he did right, has no regrets

The mission being carried out by the security forces to flush terrorists out of the Taj finally ended on Saturday morning. After more than 60 hours of intense encounter, the guns fell silent and the bloodshed stopped.

The encounter, that lasted the longest, ended with the killing of four terrorists holed up inside. But Mumbai has paid a heavy price for it.

Almost 200 people are dead and these numbers do not include the casualties at the Taj yet. At least 18 foreigners are among the dead.

The security forces have managed to kill nine terrorists. One of them, AA Qasad, was caught alive and is currently being interrogated by Mumbai Police.

During his preliminary interrogation, Qasad believed to have reportedly told police, "I have done right and I have no regrets." He has also admitted to being a member of the Lashkar.

Qasab also told the police that he and his associate Ismail Khan were the ones who shot Anti-Terror Squad chief Hemant Karkare, encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar and Additional Commissioner Ashok Kamte.

According to the police, Qasab had booked rooms in the Taj where the explosives were kept.

Terrorists showed Mauritian ID Cards and posed as students to the hotel. Indian ID cards were recovered from two terrorists at the Oberoi Trident.

A recce of all the locations were done around four months ago by a different group of terrorists.

They studied the satellite pictures of the hotels, various locations and made detailed maps.

Qasad is reportedly from Faridkot in Pakistan and has been remanded to police custody till December 8.

[aneeshm]

In the past year, terrorist attacks have been getting more sophisticated. This is their current zenith.

However, this and the last are the only ones which have actually succeeded in their stated objective - terror. This is the first time I have seen people people actually scared for their own safety. I'm in Pune, and this is the first time that people have become fearful in their daily lives. On the first day of the attacks, I received a (rather ominous) SMS message on my mobile from the Pune police saying that the rumours were false, and that I should continue my normal activities.

My mother was concerned and called me to see where I was. Even though she did not ask, I assured her that I would not go to any public places. She sounded relieved after that. My friends are no longer comfortable in large places for a few days after an attack of this sort. Earlier, these things were always something that happened to other people, or happened rarely enough to not be a psychological presence. Now, however, each attack drives the fear deeper into the collective mind.

For the first time, people are scared. Terrorised.

And that is bad. Very, very bad. Because as a nation, we never stay terrorised for long. We act. If the political elite does not take action, I am afraid that the people will. There have been, in the last few months, one or two "retaliatory" attacks on mosques by Hindu radical groups. If the state is perceived to be weak, the old Hindu psychological response of the common man taking things into his own hands will start to come into play. And I fear that the "Muslim" will be the one who will be target of our collective ire.

But these are not the old days of myth. The issues are not so simple and clear-cut. There isn't even a definable "enemy". I am afraid that if this continues, and the state does nothing, then we as a people may do something which we will later regret.