Yes. Start reading this thread about post #196.
I don’t think so. If that were true, I would be a Clinton supporter. It’s not always as simple as some might assume.
Some of your criticisms are justified, ascenray. I had forgotten much or not known. But her economic policies fed the poor and nationalized the banks. No one seems to regret that. Her “dictatorial” powers didn’t last so long that she didn’t retain her popularity. After the voting scandal and a loss of power, she was reelected to a fourth term. Social democracy became more powerful while she was in office and Bangladesh won it’s freedom. Like it or not, she is still revered.
No, I honestly don’t know what happened to the Sikhs after her assassination by her own Sikh guards. But I know what happened to some of the Sikhs in the Punjab before she was assassinated. (At least, I think it was before her death.) There is no excuse for such a slaughter.
I would be interested in hearing you thoughts on her father if that is not a total hijack.
You mean, like, Darfur?
I don’t think there is any serious argument that Indira Gandhi’s policies “fed the poor” in a way that was significantly different from other administrations’ policies. India’s economy didn’t improve significantly until the 1990s when a lot of the centralised control policies were eliminated.
Then there was also the involuntary vasectomy/sterilisation program.
Except that she got trounced in the 1977 election.
Her 1980 return to power was the result of several factors, not insignificantly, the incompetence of the Janata Party administration.
Significantly, it was after that that Gandhi instituted policies that both promoted Sikh separatism while brutally suppressing Sikhs, previously generally regarded as one of the most loyal of Indian ethnic groups. That resulted in her own long-time bodyguards’ assassinating her.
And “revered” is not the same as “great,” is it? The fact that she was brutally murdered has done wonders for her popularity.
What I know about Nehru is what everyone knows … he had his good qualities, but the qualities that influenced India most were those that made him a naive, effete, and self-important. He bungled the relationship with China; his intransigence probably lost India its best chance at settling the Kashmir problem early on; he put India on the side of the Soviet Union in the cold war; his economic policies were no product of genius; and given the chance to establish the Indian judiciary as an independent body with integrity, he forced the courts to acquit a close friend of his charged with tax fraud; he also gave India his daughter as a successor.
All in all, I think Nehru was a failure as a prime minister, but at least he wasn’t a murderous autocrat like Indira Gandhi.
Oh, now that is a fantastic question.
Particularly as it has nothing whatsoever to do with them, they being American and the woman being British.
However Muslim orgs in the UK have been fully on board and there was a Muslim picket of the Sudanese Embassy. The woman has now been freed after two Muslim peers met with the Sudanese President.
Of course it’s an oversimplification, as talking about groups always is. BUT, let’s say hypothetically there is a country where, say 10% (and I’m making up these numbers here), of women (all upper-class) get to be educated at least through high school and have the opportunity to have a career, and one of them manages to become leader of that country. There is another country where all women (regardless of class) have the opportunity to be educated through high school and have the opportunity to have a career, but in this country, there has never been a woman leader. In which of those countries would you consider women in general to be better off or more “free?” Does the existance of that woman leader make a difference to the 90% of women who are not allowed or don’t have the means to get an education? If having that woman leader doesn’t affect the opportunities for the majority of women, what is the benefit to them and their freedom?
Quotas don’t make people more free…how can they have quotas if there are free elections? Isn’t giving people the right to install their own governmental leaders more important to freedom than guaranteeing that women are part of the governing body?
Not sure what popularity has to do with freedom?
It’s absolutely not unfair to say that…it’s something we should say. My argument isn’t that, it’s with the idea that a country’s having a woman leader necessarily means that the women of that country are “more free” than women in other countries.
Whether or not she was a great leader isn’t the point at all. The question is, are Indian women more free in general than American women?
Yes, there are, and the women in those countries have varying amounts of freedom, which doesn’t necessarily seem to be affected by the sex of the leader.
My generation of American women are unbelieveably fortunate by any standards. And, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a woman president of the US within my lifetime (maybe even in a year or so). This will be a testament to the freedom we have here in the US. Hillary is a a fine example of the strides women have made here…that someone of your generation, educated in the public schools, was fairly elected to the senate (no quotas required) and now is a leading and serious candidate for President.
Just for the record, the guy with the mountains of human skulls was Tamerlane, who was a Muslim. Temujin is more famously known as Genghis Khan, and was either pagan or Buddhist, and, while he killed a lot of people, I don’t think he used used their bones as decorations after.
There was at least one skull-stacking incident on Genghis’ watch, but it wasn’t quite the same deal. The city of Nishapur had managed to successfully repel a Mongol assault, killing Genghis’ son-in-law Toquchar in the process. Genghis’ youngest son Tolui was charged with avenging that and he took the city and systematically butchered it, with his sister, Toquchar’s widow, presiding as witness. To prove everyone had been properly massacred, purportedly the heads of men, women and children were carefully seperated and stacked in their own pyramids.
My namesake by contrast used skull pyramids as a more regularized terror tactic.
You got your wish.
ETA: still haven’t googled ‘salmon helmet’, but since I’ve got Family Guy seasons 1-5 on DVD I guess I have that to look forward to.
They let her go.
Huh. Isn’t it a shame that when hard line Muslim governments demonstrate common sense in cases like this that I am surprised?
One does appreciate a well stacked skull pyramid.
Some further developments. According to this Time article, an employee of the school who had a grudge against the teacher tried to get the children’s parents to complain, but they declined to object to the bear naming, so she filed the complaint herself.
The article also says that protests weren’t as large or as extensive as previously believed or reported.
It also suggests that Islam is a “two-edged sword” to the Sudan government, which uses it to advantage but is embarassed when it is used against them.
Yes, it’s a real head-turner.
I am sorry I am a little late in responding to some of acsenray’s comments.
Individual persons do not do define a philosophy. Some Hindus not being pacifists does not reflect on the quality or characteristics of Hinduism as a philosophy.
First, that is not the ‘essence’ of the Bhagavad Gita at all. What you quote is only a scene.
The actual ‘essence’ of the scripture, if any, is the victory of evil over good, of righteousness over immorality.
Krishna does not tell Arjun to murder his family!! I am sure you know this is wrong but said it in a huff in the hope that it would somehow support your point. The war between the two factions in Mahabharata had already been declared and the battle lines were drawn. Krishna only reminded Arjuna of his duty as a warrior that the war about to take place was ‘Dharma Yuddha’, meaning a righteous war for the purpose of justice. That evil was in the form of his cousins made no difference.
In the context of this thread, it can certainly be claimed with conviction that the philosophy of Hinduism is indeed pacifist.
Once again you make the mistake of relating the actions of a person to the philosophy of a religion.Ashoka did not go to war with the kingdom of Kalinga for relgious reasons. Sure he might have killed many many people in the war but the reason for that killing had nothing to do with either spreading religion or defending it.
Hinduism as a philosophy, is not only that of tolerance, but of absolute freedom in your faith. Nowhere in its scriptures does it say that one who is not a Hindu is condemned. Nowhere in it, is there any punishment described for not following its teachings. Nowhere is there any retribution for giving up your religion and converting to another. In fact there is no compulsion in anything at all. How can religion based on such a philosophy not be pacifist?
Please do not to confuse political hijacking of the relgion by some people, with the religion itself.
And Hinduism is not a “philosophy” that can be defined and categorized independent of the specific beliefs, practices, and actions of every individual Hindu.
Hinduism is not a dogmatic religion. No text – not the Bhagavad Gita, not the Rig Veda – is accepted by Hindus as defining “Hindu philosophy.” No self-appointed religious scholar has the authority to judge certain acts as being “Hindu” or “non-Hindu” in contradiction to the belief of the individual Hindu performing that act. Hinduism, more than any other major religion, is defined by the individual acts and beliefs of those who label themselves Hindus.
An individual religious text might be labeled pacifist. An individual Hindu might be labeled a pacifist. However, if the vast majority of Hindus are not pacifists, Hinduism as a whole cannot be a pacifist philosophy.
In the context of the Mahabharata, getting Arjun to “do his duty” is the intent without which the Bhagavad Gita would not have happened. It is the “but for” that defines the essence of the work for the purposes of the Mahabharata.
Krishna posits that there is such a thing as a just war and that it is Arjun’s duty to participate in it. From Arjun’s point of view, on the plain of Kuru, the practical meaning of the message is “kill them.”
It certainly might mean other things as well, but this interpretation is undeniable.
The Mahabharat makes clear that the line between good and evil is unclear. No character is shown as unambiguously good or evil in his or her acts. They all make questionable decisions; they all perform questionable acts. They all violate the laws of good conduct and of righteous war.
If it is possible to interpret Krishna’s message as “you’re on the side of righteousness; therefore, any killing you do on this battlefield is solely in the service of righteousness,” then the Bhagavad Gita itself, in seeking to absolve Arjun’s conscience is ambiguous in terms of good and evil.
Non sequitur. Freedom of thought, belief, conscience, freedom in faith, etc., is not pacifism. Pacifism is the abjuration of all violence. Hinduism does not instruct Hindus to refrain from all violence, and the Bhagavad Gita is a perfect example.
Let’s take a real example of pacifist philosophy … Gandhi. Gandhi told the British to surrender to Nazi Germany, saying essentially, “Let them kill us; they will only be doing violence to their own souls.” That is pacifism.
Krishna is not a pacifist. The concept of a “just war” is entirely irreconcilable with pacifism.
Are you trying to say that the ‘philosophy’ of a religion is defined by the acts of the people practicing it? Assuming hypothetically that for some reason all the Jainis start doing everything counter to the teachings of their faith, will it mean that the philosophy of the teachings of Mahavira have changed? That is absolute nonsense!!
As for your claim:
do you have something to support it or it is your personal view altogether??
When talking in the context of religion, the word ‘philosophy’ implies the concept or theory underlying the sphere of activities or thoughts concerned with that religion. Take the ritual and mythological portions out of any religion and most of what you are left with is the philosophy of that religion.
And in the case of the Sanatana Dharma, it is indeed the underlying concepts of all the scriptures including the Vedas, the Vedanta and the Upanishads that define the fundamental Hindu philosophy!!
Heck, to be precise Hinduism is more a philosophy than a religion at all!
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Who said anything about self appointed religious scholars exercising authority to judge acts of people? Ninety nine percent of the Hindus are Hindus because they are born Hindus. For example I am a Hindu because I am born of Hindu parents. My actions or my beliefs do not make me a non-Hindu unless I myself decide to openly declare that I am not a Hindu. Perhaps even then I will continue to be considered a Hindu unless perhaps I convert to some other religion like Christianity or Islam and change my name. Regardless of what I do in my personal life or what actions I perform, I will remain a Hindu till my death. Until what was started by the Arya Samajis, and there are fundamental questions to the legitimacy of that , there is not even a formal process to ‘convert’ to Hinduism.
Wrong again!! Many Hindus can be killers, murderers or terrorists. That has no bearing on the philosophy garnered from the texts that make up the Hindu religion. More important is that the religious texts in themselves do not prescribe the use of violence for the defense or the spread of the religion.
Perhaps not in the literal meaning of the word, but in the context of what is being discussed, and please note that the context is important here, Hinduism is definitely pacifist. Because the context here is of religion(s) where violence is expressly recommended against those that blaspheme it. The context here is of retribution and punishment prescribed by the religion for acts that are considered against its tenets . The context is the precribed actions/reactions of one religion with other religions.
Have you actually read the Bhagvad Gita?? I ask because it sure doesn’t look like you have else you would not be putting forth this crap over and over again.
Please cite a single verse from the Bhagvad Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna to “kill them”!! Heck, cite a single verse where he has used the word “kill” let alone recommending it. Over and over and over again, Krishna ONLY counsels and exhorts Arjuna to “perform his duty” as a “warrior” in the battlefield. The scene just happens to be the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna just happens to be a warrior in that battlefield. The duty in this case just happens to be to ‘fight’. Fighting does not mean only killing. It also means getting killed if the situation so warrants!! What is so hard to understand the difference between exhorting someone to do his duty as a soldier and fight, and telling someone to kill because religion has been reviled??
The Bhagvad Gita does not deal with the events that led up to the war between the warring factions. Mahabharata is only an epic. It carries no teachings and presents no philosophy. We are not discussing the events of the Mahabharata here.
No!! It is not possible to inerpret anything other than what is precisely written! And all that is written is that you should not abstain from performing your duty. Nowhere in the discourse of the Gita does Krishna tell Arjun that he or the Pandavas are “on the side of the righteous”. The Bhagvad Gita does not trying to “absolve” anyone of any act.
Hinduism does not prescribe violence as a means to settle disputes. The matter of settling disputes is out of the purview of the religion of Hinduism.
Bhagwad Gita does not prescribe violence as a means of settling dispute either and so is not an example of the philosophy of Hinduism prescribing violence.
Please support your arguments with cites.
I beg to differ, that aint pacifism, that’s fucking stupidity