Article

2007-09-15 India-Pakistan

US sees serious religious freedom problems in Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-09-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top
File under: Global Jihad

#1 Religious freedom is integral to our efforts to combat the ideology of hatred and religious intolerance that fuels global terrorism, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Even Rice grants undue credibility to Islamic regimes by her diplomatic recognition of them.

Many individuals from various religious groups were targeted because of their religious identity or their secular leanings,

Whoa, now! These religious groups were targeted because of WHAT? Do you mean to say that Islam had no role in this?!?

In Egypt, a key US ally, respect for religious freedom has declined

Which part of this is supposed to make me puke? A key US ally or religious freedom?

There are cases where converts have been held and sometimes received physical abuse,

No!!!!! Never!

The report also highlighted religious repression in China, which reportedly expelled more than 100 foreign missionaries in the spring of 2007 in what some groups alleged was a government-initiated campaign to tighten control on Christian house churches ahead of the Olympics next year.

Yet none of that prevents us from buying billions of dollars worth of goods each year from the Politburos Mandarins. Perish the flaming thought.

Iran headed last years list alongside China, Eritrea, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan.

Yet China and Saudi Arabiatwo of the worlds most repressive yet prosperous economies remain beyond reproach. Go figure.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-15 00:26|| 2007-09-15 00:26|| Front Page Top

#2 No shit, Sherlock.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-15 09:33|| 2007-09-15 09:33|| Front Page Top

#3 The report criticizes the BJP party in India for advocating a uniform civil code.

Now, the UCC is actually mandated by the Indian constitution but never implemented because of Muslim opposition.

So Muslim law (Sharia) governs marriage, divorce, alimony etc.

The State Department apparently has no problem with this, but a big problem with those who advocate one secular law for all citizens...

Posted by john frum 2007-09-15 10:21|| 2007-09-15 10:21|| Front Page Top

#4 The State Department apparently has no problem with this, but a big problem with those who advocate one secular law for all citizens...

How is it that all these sensitive bleeding-heart handwringers nonetheless have absolutely no problem with shari'a law's incredible barbarity?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-15 10:31|| 2007-09-15 10:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Oh-oh. Does Dee Dee Doodoo know about this?

Posted by tu3031 2007-09-15 10:41|| 2007-09-15 10:41|| Front Page Top

#6 This is partial Sharia... not the criminal part.. just the laws regarding marriage etc.

In the 80's an old Muslim woman was triple talaqed ("I divorce you"...) and thrown out of the house.
She fought back in the courts and won alimony in the Indian Supreme Court.

Well, the Muslims agitated and the Indian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that asserted the "rights" of the Muslim personal law boards.

So an old, uneducated woman after decades of marriage was deprived of her alimony by an act of Parliament.

And the BJP is being anti-Muslim by criticizing this...

Ironically the most rabid of the "Hindu fundamentalists" is probably equivalent to a "moderate Muslim"... but the State Department equates the idiots who destroy Valentine's day displays with hardcore jihadis like the LeT

Posted by john frum 2007-09-15 10:45|| 2007-09-15 10:45|| Front Page Top

Had the wrong graphic. Fixed.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-09-15 12:00|| 2007-09-15 12:00|| Front Page Top

#8 State Department equates the idiots who destroy Valentine's day displays with hardcore jihadis like the LeT

Well do "Hindu fundamentalists" make a practice of arranging a confortable retairment for their friends in USDS?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-15 12:29|| 2007-09-15 12:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Diplomatic services do however attract more than their fair share of personnel who romanticize Arab and Muslim culture.

John Foster Dulles for instance had a bizarre notion that Muslims were great fighters. Even though his own brother Allen had taught English in India, he though the Gurhka people who inhabit Nepal and India were Muslim and Pakistani...

This was vividly reflected in a conversation which Walter Lippmann claimed to have had with Dulles at a Washington dinner party shortly after the 1954 Geneva Accords. Look Walter, Dulles said, blinking behind his thick glasses, Ive got some real fighting men into the south of Asia. The only Asians who can really fight are the Pakistanis. Thats why we need them in the alliance. We could never get along without the Gurkhas. When Lippmann reminded him that the Gurkhas are Indian, not Pakistani, Dulles replied, Well, they may not be Pakistanis, but theyre Moslems. Lippmann once more corrected Dulles, saying, No, Im afraid theyre not Moslems either, theyre Hindus. Dulles merely replied, No matter, and proceeded to lecture Lippmann for half an hour on how SEATO would plug the dike against communism in Asia

Posted by john frum 2007-09-15 13:03|| 2007-09-15 13:03|| Front Page Top

23:59 Boss Craising2882
23:55 Zenster
23:53 Zenster
23:16 SR-71
23:02 SR-71
23:02 Zenster
22:59 Zenster
22:44 Zenster
22:31 Zenster
22:28 trailing wife
21:50 Jimmy Carter
21:42 McZoid
21:30 Valentine
21:27 gorb
20:58 mrp
20:57 Ptah
20:48 twobyfour
20:44 Frank G
20:40 lotp
20:39 lotp
20:36 twobyfour
20:25 mrp
20:19 Zenster
20:16 Duh!