Iraq : Is religion above board?

If you read my posts carefully, you will see that there is no gloating here. I leave that to those who enjoy mudslinging without concern for the real-life problems of people. That post was in fact to keep my part of the agreement with a particular poster to continue discussion on a specified time and place.

Bad rambling.

Cheers.

#1 by tahmed32 on April 10, 2003 7:19am PT

I think you have read the respose of people on that board to this bloodthirsty gloating on it.

...good rambling...

Religion is not be blamed. All religions preach ``Goodness``.

But the politicians who mix religion with politics are to be blamed.

The West has outgrown it after the crusades.

Presently, only the adherents of radical Islam, a small minority, tends to politicize it.

Radicalizing Hinduism is only a recent phenomenon. And I think it is a passing one.

All other issues such as Palestine, Kashmir etc are political and territorial issues.

One of the reasons for the war I forgot to mention was : To divide the muslims into Shiates and Sunnis (like in Afghanistan). What do you thnk of THAT one too? :)

``Is religion fully innocent, then?``

Sir, I would say..religion is the root cause of all troubles.

My God is superior to yours. The rat race amongst religions today is crazy. Especially, now between Christianity and Islam, who aspire to remain the `world`s fastest growing religions`. And hence, these two believe in converting as many people as possible, especially Christianity nowadays.
But such a religion becomes more of a business/politics and ceases to be a relgion.
Religion is something personal.

The basic motive in any war is the economic benefits. Religions are exploited to give justification and to win support. In the current Iraq war religion is not used because Bush doesn`t want to alert Muslims that he`s getting them one by one and also because Muslims don`t have any faith in Saddam as a Muslim leader.

SECOND CALL FOR POSTER SAJNI: Back in March 9, before the start of the Iraq war, we had agreed to hold further discussion on Iraq until April 10, at which time we would discuss it again on the topmost article on Chowk. Since by then time would have proven whether I knew what I was talking about when I said the war would not drag on for months as you had feared, and as many chowk posters were taking for granted. And that it would be welcomed by the Iraqi people, and many chowk posters had never imagined.

So, here I am, like I said I would. (I already posted an initial call yesterday on the article that was then on the top on chowk). Any comments?