Log In | Register
IQBAL.LATIF
Searching the purpose of our existance and where do we end up?
Articles Posted: 215; Links Seeded: 52
Member Since: 3/2007Last Seen: 11/05/2009
Member Since: 3/2007Last Seen: 11/05/2009
27 Comments
PrintWhy 'Low human development and inequality' is associated with deeply religious societies.
News Type: Event — Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:00 AM EST
Look at any country at the lowest rung of development more often than not you will see they are stuck in quagmire of self destruction. The lowest ten countries that are marred with lowest level of human development index which counts amongst many other factors education and infant mortality are also victims of religious intolerance and as a result acute tribalism and internecine wars.
Religion incites division unfortunately, as pre occupation with divinity definitely results in poverty and low education. Mankind today is divided into two classes the post- renaissance and pre- renaissance societies. The west is broadly the part of first and others like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and sub Saharan Africa part of the later.
The GINI coefficient in India is increasing alarmingly like Brazil. India rose in the dollar billionaire rankings, from rank 8 in 2006 to number 4 in the Forbes list this year, but slipped from 126 to 128 in human development. In the billionaire stakes, Indians are ahead of most of the planet. Even the United States the country with highest number of new billionaires also dropped from 8 to 12 in the HDI rankings this year. Becoming rich with greater sense of charity and tolerance might be the rightcourse for any nation or individual to succeed.
advertisement
(The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing, or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and Indian economist Amartya Sen.)
Religions were good for taking societies from point A to B, however, as exponential growth of knowledge and sciences have exposed us to a totally new kind of knowledge, 'religion' has definitely become a drag. Religion demands judgmental approach. As a result, any critical thinking and questioning is seriously obstructed.
It is religion that teaches us the lesson of intolerance for a divergent view. In super rich societies, dogmas like the age of our universe is 6,000 years, the thought that we are at the heart of the universe develops an exaggerated sense of human importance and creates most of the obstacles. In lesser educated societies, religious hope of life after death and Puritanism inflict mayhem. Those who want to make a mark in the next world, making this one a perfect hell, should definitely deserve our censure.
If we realize it is all about enlightenment and tolerance of diverse ideas, that it is about egalitarianism and love, it is about equality and magnanimity, and not about faultlessness of belief, we can be great Jews, great Christians, great Hindus and great Muslims and we can live together in great unity. Unity in diversity at the highest level would be to find unity as inhabitants of this lonely speck of a pale blue dot in a very insignificant corner of our very insignificant galaxy within the entire universe. Once we realize that our rendezvous and zeal with a particular brand of creed shall be replaced by enthusiasm for human love, proselytising then becomes the least concern; human misery and inequalities come to the fore.
Why do we need to worship one particular prophet? Why do we insist in loyalty of creed when ideas and life have so many different forms and colors? Let's have all good things as part of our life and routine; let's take all human virtues as the greatest gift of mankind. The problem arises when religion enforces selectivity of one thought over another; it is that selectivity of 'ideological puritanism' that becomes a predicament for us.
Our new frontiers of knowledge have exposed mankind at large to new challenges. Decadent thought processes and non-scientific approach can only lead to confusion.
We see this happening all around us; societies that missed their renaissance earlier are going through a period of self-discovery, unfortunately, with the ferocity and violence as seen in medieval times.
Look at any country at the lowest rung of development. More often than not, you will see they are stuck in a quagmire of self-destruction. The lowest ten countries that are marred with the lowest level of human development index, which counts amongst many other factors like education and infant mortality, are also victims of religious intolerance and, as a result, acute tribalism and internecine wars.
Religion incites division, unfortunately, just as preoccupation with divinity definitely results in poverty and low education. Mankind today is divided into two classes - the post-renaissance and pre-renaissance societies. The west is broadly a part of the first, and others like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and sub Saharan Africa part of the latter.
One factor that is ignored in HDI studies is 'freedom of minds;' countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as OPEC are high on HDI but low on human per capita intellectual productivity, since freedom there is compromised through ideological shackles. Even wealthy religious societies, if caught with dogma, become inward looking.
Perhaps, one can definitely argue that USA is a very religious country but still very progressive, however, one cannot discount that it is due to post-renaissance nature of the society. In societal terms, USA has matured to live with the luxury of commandments. Religion and church has not been able to persecute scientists and scholars, unlike those times when Galileo's support for Copernicusism was punished in a pre-renaissance society by the Catholic Church on grounds of blasphemy. (Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.)
Dawkins and Sagan are/were free to express their views even if they propose ideas contrary to biblical stories. In primitive pre-renaissance societies, any view opposed by Koran or any other holy book is blasphemous and cause for strife and killing.
For many of us complex human beings, faith leads and lights the candle of hope. In the present world of uncertainty, it may not be a bad idea; it is always soothing to look for some help from Providence and the Almighty. This is a great luxury to live with in a prosperous, mentally matured and a constitutional society, however, in a society where human mind has not yet matured and constitution as part of statecraft is still in infancy, religion and scriptures alone are definitely very divisive and cause serious discord and annihilation.
Poverty and income inequality are curses of our society. In deeply religious societies we see both increasing at a frightening rate; in addition, if one looks at the list of countries or dependencies by income inequality metrics including Gini coefficients, according to the United Nations, a Gini index of 0 represents perfect economic equality, and 100 perfect inequality, a similar pattern emerges; the top 30 most unequal societies are necessarily very deeply dogmatic, pre-renaissance unconstitutional societies too. I wonder and see as a point of concern where liberated societies with entrenched religious freedoms are failing in transferring the impact of their new-found wealth to the entire cross-section of the social order.
The GINI coefficient in India is increasing alarmingly like Brazil. India rose in the dollar billionaire rankings, from rank 8 in 2006 to number 4 in the Forbes list this year, but slipped from 126 to 128 in human development. In the billionaire stakes, Indians are ahead of most of the planet. Even the United States, the country with the highest number of new billionaires, also dropped from 8 to 12 in the HDI rankings this year. Becoming rich with greater sense of charity and tolerance might be the right course for any nation or individual to succeed. The world is not a proprietary place for billionaires or fundamentalists alone, it is about the fate of 6 billion of us so let's make a sincere attempt to understand and share resources and minds in way that gives room to every person; let pluralism, true egalitarianism and incentive become the heart of our living.
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1011577
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Poor countries (those with low per-capita GDP) have Gini coefficients that fall over the whole range from low (0.25) to high (0.71), while rich countries generally have intermediate Gini coefficients (under 0.40). Generally, the lowest Gini coefficients can be found in Australia, Japan, Scandinavian countries including Greenland, and in the recently ex-socialist countries of Eastern Europe.
21 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- iqbal.latif's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (27)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
5.0
2.0
{"commentId":1413043,"authorDomain":"blai"}
For many years in the USA, there was a deep-seated prejudice against the Catholics. John F Kennedy gave a speech about his Catholic faith in 1960, saying:
this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
Look again at that map. Which countries have the best GINI ratings? They are all countries where religious pluralism is a matter of state policy. When America feared the Catholics, they had historically sound reasons for that fear, a few centuries outdated, true. But religion is always the camel trying to get into the tent of government. It must be kept out.
{"commentId":1413043,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"blai"}
- 4 votes
#1 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:15 AM EST{"commentId":1413107,"authorDomain":"appleannie"}
I voted up your comment. But what about the Quakers?
Seriously. (And please don't use Nixon as an example, lol!)
{"commentId":1413107,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"appleannie"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1413505,"authorDomain":"blai"}
The American model of William Penn, who set up a haven for religious refugees, is the one I like best, and he was a Quaker.
{"commentId":1413505,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"blai"}
{"commentId":1413150,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
Perhaps one should differentiate between religions that attempt to require everyone to be forced to their ways and those who do so through persuasion. As with all generalizations, there are many who strive to fight against others as in the crusades, in the firm belief that the conquered will become "free" and closer to god.
The opportunity to keep religion out of government ended with "One Nation under God." Besides, why is it necessary to keep it out of government, if that means having no influence by religion in government. Any person is affected in some way by their religion. And any religion seeks to affect government.
1.0 - Blaise - Perhaps your point about keeping religion out is to ensure that religions never become "official" and thereby create intolerance in government. If so, we heartily agree. Perhaps you mean by keeping religion our means that religion should not create policy, and that no single policy should be proselytized by any government administration or legislature. I also agree with this.
But there is no ideal available, and I would argue that it is inadvisable, to keep religion completely out of government. We need morals, and to have them intersect somewhere. Religion has no place insisting on more than this role. But that role should be permitted as individual guideposts, and no one should be prohibited from attempt to achieve any particular agenda just because it is based on religious beliefs.
{"commentId":1413150,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:50 AM EST{"commentId":1413474,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
We need morals, and to have them intersect somewhere. Religion has no place insisting on more than this role.
It has no place even on insisting on this. Why do you assume that only the religious have a sense of morals, or that morality is somehow dependent on a religious outlook?
{"commentId":1413474,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
{"commentId":1413537,"authorDomain":"blai"}
The point about keeping religion out of politics is more to this end: religion is a matter of absolutes. Politics is all about compromise. I'm a Christian, I make no apology for it.
Now here's the way it's usually worked: it's the politicians who bring the church into the system, to gain legitimacy. Henry VIII had no use for the church, other than to give him the right to divorce. The Church of England became an unhealthy monster, neither truly church nor truly state, it was never an engine for reform, and oppressed other faiths such as William Penn's Quakers. And why? Because they weren't patriotic. Can you see the problem here? The church says its dissenters aren't patriotic: that's only a claim the state should make.
Yes, we need religion. Hindus ought to be better Hindus, Muslims better Muslims, Christians better Christians. In a world of sadness, isolation and unbelief in our fellow man, there is a place for religion in society. Religion must be kept out of politics, more for its own good than for any harm it might do to society, though it has done immense harm when the barrier is taken down.
{"commentId":1413537,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"blai"}
{"commentId":1413634,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
2.1 - AA - "Insisting" was too strong a word, although it can be interpreted the way I intended. A better word choice would have been "advocating."
2.2 - BP - The Church of England example you use is the use of the church as a part of government. This is not religion in government. It is use of a given church as government.
The Church of England was clearly a political church with the king at its head as best I remember. However, the teachings of the Church were the same as those of Catholics. And those teachings are generally good from a moral standpoint and do us good in the battle of ideas. They just should not be the government, as with the Church of England when devised, or act as the government as has been argued to be the situation for many Bush administrators.
{"commentId":1413634,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
{"commentId":1413785,"authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
Well Cliff...not a bad post.
consider: "One Nation Under God-Iran"
This is not what we want.
You said: "And any religion seeks to affect government" but as one profound poster said: "Religion is like a camel, always trying to sneak in the government tent, but it must be kept out."
You argue that we need religion for morals...who assigned religion as the arbiter of our morals? Religion cossets those morals that reflect their dogma and beliefs...it would be extremely blind of you to believe that morals cannot arise in say an atheist as well as or better than those dictated as in a church?
You have to let the "Freedom of Thought" genie out of the theistic bottle if our civilization is to advance.
All Messianic religion is no more than a poetic conceit. It adds more mystery by demanding faith over logic or pontificating with "magic book" in hand, rather than attempting to answer life's questions with a qualified authority, and an edifice of supporting evidence and logic.
{"commentId":1413785,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
{"commentId":1415570,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
I think I said:
those teachings are generally good from a moral standpoint and do us good in the battle of ideas.
I am not of the view that religion is necessary for morals, and indeed at some point believe that I talked about universal truths. I am not advocating religion, but am advocating religious freedom without getting into the fine niceties of whether religion is "in" our government but surely in making "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
{"commentId":1415570,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
{"commentId":1413178,"authorDomain":"appleannie"}
1.0 - Blaise - Perhaps your point about keeping religion out is to ensure that religions never become "official" and thereby create intolerance in government. If so, we heartily agree. Perhaps you mean by keeping religion our means that religion should not create policy, and that no single policy should be proselytized by any government administration or legislature. I also agree with this.
Yes.
But there is no ideal available, and I would argue that it is inadvisable, to keep religion completely out of government. We need morals, and to have them intersect somewhere. Religion has no place insisting on more than this role. But that role should be permitted as individual guideposts, and no one should be prohibited from attempt to achieve any particular agenda just because it is based on religious beliefs.
A completely irreligious society is not a place where I want to live.
Think of it.
Very few people are capable of behaving appropriately solely because it is in the best interest of society.
{"commentId":1413178,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"appleannie"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:00 AM EST{"commentId":1413478,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
Very few people are capable of behaving appropriately solely because it is in the best interest of society.
Just as many if not more are capable of behaving inappropriately because their special friend told them it was OK for the Chosen to do bad things to the Heathens.
{"commentId":1413478,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1413814,"authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
So Annie, you want them to act according to the dictates of a priesthood that claims they have the ear of God?
To act according to a religion whose adherents, in their beliefs, claims and practices are certifiably insane? (yet not closeted in institutions because of the "normative" nature of their afflictions as demonstrated in their vast numbers)
Lets face it, if you hear voices and act upon them, telepathically tell an invisible, cosmic Jesus that you accept him as your master, believe that your soul is under an evil force brought upon humanity by a woman made from a man's rib bone, who was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree...not exactly someone whom I would associate with as an authority on appropriate behavior.
{"commentId":1413814,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1413185,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
I agree with your conclusions but more than religion I think it has to do with the mindset.
The true revolution is revamping the people's mindset. One could argue that French laicism is as destructive to society as a theocracy. As I wrote to Ardeshir on Friday it's when the culture of introspection and questioning is undermined then we can see a decline in society (or family or individual).
The US model of federalism and constitutional entrenchment of ideological and regional differences, which many call divisive, is the sole reason for its continued success. It's also the reason why it'll surpass China; central development by communist fiat may be a good way to spur on economic growth but for a society to progress and advance it requires continual and unfettered chatter. The USA federal model provides the authoritative guide for the Baha'is in how to accommodate an extremely diverse spectrum of opinion without undermining the foundation. It seems however the UHJ is more content in pursuing the Chinese way for now.
zachary
{"commentId":1413185,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:02 AM EST{"commentId":1413235,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
Interesting comment on federalism. I have long thought that the inefficiencies in being federal are proof that it should not survive from an economic standpoint. On the other hand, a true federation, like Switzerland, or one held by force, like the USSR, is not often achievable because one needs primacy somewhere, don't you think?
{"commentId":1413235,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
{"commentId":1413229,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
Stupendous article! My favorite excerpt
"For many of us complex human beings, faith leads and lights the candle of hope. In the present world of uncertainty, it may not be a bad idea; it is always soothing to look for some help from Providence and the Almighty. This is a great luxury to live with in a prosperous, mentally matured and a constitutional society, however, in a society where human mind has not yet matured and constitution as part of statecraft is still in infancy, religion and scriptures alone are definitely very divisive and cause serious discord and annihilation."
….Food for thought….
{"commentId":1413229,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:21 AM EST{"commentId":1413246,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
{"commentId":1413655,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
5.0 - IL - I do not believe that this is correct, especially the reference to religion alone, unless it means some specific church or mosque inside some particular religion.
As with all nations, not every church or mosque in every religion stands for the same thing. The ministers and their supplicants are both very different. To say otherwise incorrectly treats everyone as the same, a prejudice that is not a good thing in the short or long run IMHO.
Of course, nations may have just one church dominated by one government. As to this issue alone, I agree that this is not healthy. But no religion is to blame for its radicals or their murders and the hate and fear they bring to any country. To do otherwise is to demonize an entire country or religion for the work of the very few, or even worse, for a single government.
This is the danger of treating religion as any more than what it has represented from the beginning of time. Moral code that at times may be manipulated by government, but does not need to be. We need these moral codes, as diverse as they may be, just as we need some fundamentally important concepts that transcend religions. For the first, we need to let the religions make their own ways. For the second, we need to allow government to ensure that minorities are not oppressed and that so-called universal truths prevail. The right to life. The right to marry. The right to be left alone to one's own thoughts. And so forth.
{"commentId":1413655,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
{"commentId":1413829,"authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
Cliff...religion did not formulate a moral code but rather adopted those public parts that suited their faith.
{"commentId":1413829,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
#6 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:27 PM EST{"commentId":1413851,"authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
The only thing that you can irrefutably derive from a man's mind construct is the fact that it is a construct.
All of religious belief is a construct and the onus of proof and credibility is the burden of that believer.
The carefully constructed myth of Christianity is nevertheless a myth and a foolish thing to believe in. If you claim that one billion people believe, that does not detract from the fact that it is still a foolish thing.
Rational people do not allow irrationality to guide them in life.
{"commentId":1413851,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"owlafaye"}
#7 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:32 PM EST{"commentId":1413925,"authorDomain":"blai"}
Many such constructs are part of the secular world. Take the equality of men and women, the equality of the races, these are just as artificial. The belief in democracy is highly irrational: a dictator is far more efficient, yet I hope you agree democracy is a better system. But why do you believe these things to be true? They are patently irrational. People are not equal: some are richer, some are poorer, some stronger, some weaker some are criminals, some are humanitarians. Or the nation state, who said you have to root for your country in the Olympics? Quite absurd. Don't play that game with me: we believe men are created equal, and that's a spiritual statement, whether or not you want to call it so.
Look, religious truth and scientific truth are different animals. Religious people don't put their brains in neutral when they believe. It's an admission, just like your belief in democracy or equality, that we are sinners and stand in need of forgiveness. The secular world doesn't recognize good and evil in spiritual terms, whatever is not illegal is permitted in a civil society.
It's when religion starts acting like a government or vice-versa that we get in trouble.
{"commentId":1413925,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"blai"}
{"commentId":1415585,"authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
7.0 - Owla - I agree that there are some universal rights and truths that exist without religion, as is recognized by many documents and the UN. But I do believe that religions do create their own moral codes. Their similarities speak volumes of why some universal rights and truths exist in the first place. Where they come from is another question. Ever see 2001: A Space Odyssey? Remember the early man lifting the bone as a weapon? What moral code eventually spurned direct fighting, and which one does not? Where did that moral code come from? Some will argue it took "religion" whatever that is, to create the moral code. Unfortunately, that code is not always present when governments are involved. Perhaps it should be more attuned to universal truths wherever they come from. Perhaps not.
This is not to say that everyone cannot live without religion, or that no one can be agnostic or atheistic.
{"commentId":1415585,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"cliffpotter"}
{"commentId":1414720,"authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
I like the article and really think your argument is sound for the cause of tolerance. The problem is that you have not proven that the countries with the lowest HDI are the most intolerantly religious.
{"commentId":1414720,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
#8 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:23 PM EST{"commentId":1415238,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
Predominant religious, tribal, racial and as a result ''ideological strains'' are quite obvious in this low HDI countries..
Ethiopia- In 1977, there was the Ogaden War, but Ethiopia quickly defeated Somalia with a massive influx of Soviet military hardware and a Cuban military presence coupled with East Germany and South Yemen the following year. Somalian Said Barre leader of the nation that imposed war ..
Afghnanistan-Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country.
Mali's- primary export is cotton. Livestock exports and industry (producing vegetable and cottonseed oils, and textiles) have experienced growth. Although most of Mali is desert or semi-desert, the Niger River is a potential irrigation source. Exports are in three primary sector products (56% gold, 27% cotton, 5% livestock. Cote d'Ivore is where most of the country's trade goes through and the crisis previously experienced here had a negative effect on Mali's economy.
The people of Songhai, however, have had an alternate source of trade since 1952. They have traded with others over the past 200 years. The some other countries have made them the only source of trade, despising the people of Mandé and other ethnic groups. This has led to shortage on trading and markets inside Mali. People with different ethnic backgrounds have been discriminated throughout the years of hatred and, in rare occasion, violence.Approximately 90% of Malians follow Sunni Islam, but not always to the exclusion of traditional religious beliefs and practices. Muslims have their own educational systems, leading in some cases to the equivalent of baccalaureate and doctoral studies.
Niger-The majority of Niger's population practises Islam: 80%, while 15% practises Animism, and 5% practise Protestant and Catholic Christianity, as well as a growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Burkina Faso- was dominated by the empire-building Mossi/Mossi Kingdoms, who are believed to have come up to their present location from Northern Ghana, (where there exists the ethnically related Dagomba group). For centuries, the Mossi peasant was both farmer and soldier, and the Mossi people were able to defend their religious beliefs and social structure against forcible attempts to convert them to Islam by Muslims from the northwest.
Sierra Leone -Eight years of protracted war have forced close to half a million of Sierra Leone's people to flee the country - turning them into Africa's largest refugee population. Countless Sierra Leoneans have lost their lives, and the country's economy has been shattered. The war, which broke out in 1991, is a complex and brutal conflict that has its roots in years of misrule, and the civil war in neighbouring Liberia. It is fuelled by diamond wealth and a long-standing resentment among the people of the poor rural interior against the richer ruling class in the coastal capital, Freetown. Both the rebels and the pro-government self-defence militias, known as the Kamajors, have recruited child soldiers. The RUF rebel movement which is waging the war against President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah and the Nigerian-led West African peacekeeping force which backs him has no clear political ideology. But rural poverty and a resentment of a distant government has been a driving force.
wikipedia sources...
{"commentId":1415238,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
#9 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:49 PM EST{"commentId":1415293,"authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
America is a very religious country, as is Italy. Many countries in the middle of the rankings are deeply religious. Countries like Argentina, Slovenia, Poland if you want names.
And this lumping together of religious intolerance and "tribalism" is artificial to say the least. If I wanted to be uncharitable I'll say it's intellectually blinkered thinking.
Still I get your point. But what you''re basing it on is undermining the very good point you're making.
{"commentId":1415293,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
{"commentId":1416670,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
{"commentId":1415261,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
Abune Antonios, Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, has reportedly been held under house arrest in Eritrea since January 2006 for refusing to cooperate with the government in closing down the Medhane Alem Church, and for protesting the arrest of three Orthodox priests from that church. He suffers from diabetes and reportedly is not receiving necessary medical attention. Please take action to protect Abune Antonios.
Strained relations between Burkina Faso and neighboring, war-torn Cote d'Ivoire have spurred human rights abuses of prisoners accused of association and/or supplying information to Cote d'Ivoire in regards to a number of issues, hindering all peace efforts.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians are at risk in the Central African Republic (CAR), as violence in neighboring Sudan and Chad continues unabated. CAR armed opposition forces kill civilians who do not support or refuse to join them. Government troops kill civilians they accuse of colluding with the armed groups and burn down entire villages during reprisal attacks. The civilians who survive attacks by government forces and members of armed opposition forces are attacked by bandits who kidnap for ransom and loot property. The vacuum of authority in the northern region of the country has created a humanitarian and human rights crisis where rape, unlawful killings, torture, and destruction of property are endangering civilians and particularly impacting women and children. More than 70,000 northern CAR citizens have fled to neighboring countries and several hundred thousand others have been internally displaced as a result of the insecurity in the region.
Sudan- Explore the satellite evidence and detailed
on-the-ground information and see with your own eyes
what is happening in Darfur.http://www.eyesondarfur.org/
{"commentId":1415261,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
#10 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:55 PM EST{"commentId":1415846,"authorDomain":"paul-1"}
This is a very solid article, and I am assuming Iqbal Latif is writing from the Middle East, a place where more of these ideas are needed.
However, it is important to realize that all human beings, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, develop through certain psychological stages. At about the 4rd stage of development, conformity and adherence to rules is valued above all else. When someone values conformity above all else, in their mind it makes sense to oppress those with different beliefs.
So far psychologists have uncovered about 9 stages of development, but less than 1 in a 1000 people develop that far. Most people get stuck in stages 3, 4, and 5, and have to stage at that stage for their whole life.
Therefore, I think we should look at the problem of religious tolerance as a failure in psychological development rather than a failure of religion itself. After all, many of the world's most loving and compassionate people have been deeply religious.
{"commentId":1415846,"threadId":"210501","contentId":"1262772","authorDomain":"paul-1"}
#11 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:43 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"210501","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
