Bush and Mush.
Bush: Hey Perve. Ssup?
Mush: Oh nothing much. I’m sitting here twiddling my thumbs. Changing prime ministers is like changing the furniture. It’s that easy.
Bush: You shoulda dunnit a whole lot sooner. How’s what’s-his-name?
Mush: Who, Jamali?
Bush: No, the other one.
Mush: Shujaat?
Bush: Heck no, the other guy.
Mush: Shaukat?
Bush: God, no … Manolo … Mango … Manhattan Singh. That’s it! Manhattan Singh! Isn’t he yer noo prime minister? How’s he doin’? Are you gonna be sackin’ him soon too, Perve? Coz if you are, you kin betcha bottom dollar that the State Department spokesman is just gonna say with a straight face that it’s Pakistan’s own internal matter but whatcha gonna do about Mrs Benazir Gandhi who, I’m told, is the power behind the throne kinda like Rummy ’n Condi and …
Mush: HELLO? HELLO? CAN I SAY SOMETHING HERE?
Bush: Sure, Perve. Go right ahead. What’s yer pet peeve? Heh heh heh. Ain’t that clever? Perve’s Pet Peeve. Kinda smart a me ta think a sompn as clever as that, right?
Mush: Sigh.Forget it.
Bush: I hear you bin on a state visit to Scandalnavia. Aren’t they the guys who’ve named their rivers after the greatest American tycoon of all time, Henry Fjord. Whatsit like ta visit the place? I hear there’s lotsa scandal in Scandalnavia like naked women an’ whippin’ an’ blue movies and lotsa M&Ms.
Mush: You mean S&M.
Bush: Whatever. But what I’d like ta know is why doesn’t Al-Qaeda target them Godless sinners in Scandalnavia? I mean why don’t they like fly airplanes inta their Fjord car factories?
Mush: Perhaps Al-Qaeda has other issues with the US which it doesn’t have with SCANDINAVIA …
Bush: Oh yeah? Like what? They’re rich too, they’re free too, they’re democracies too, they’re —
Mush: (Off line) [BUT THEY DON’T THINK THE SUN SHINES OUT OF ARIEL SHARON’S BACKSIDE!!]
Bush: Fergit Scandalnavia, Perve. How’s this fer a helpful suggestion? Seein’ as you’ve bin havin’ all this trouble with yer prime ministers, why dontcha bring Manhattan Singh ta the US for this great surgical procedure they’re now doin’ at the Washington Adventist Hospital which’ll remove every trace of a spine and guts from his body without any side effects. Condi nearly persuaded me ta try it on Colin Powell when he objected ta the Iraqistan war but then the doctors said he might not regain consciousness and I thought what’s wrong with that and in fact that’d be just fine but then Condi said the press’d git a hold of it and so I kinda dropped it …
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Monday, July 05, 2004
On secularism.
A definition of secularism is as follows:
"1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
3. a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" (www.dictionary.com)
Secularism in no way allows different ideologies to exist peacefully together. All it does is to separate religion from civil affairs or rejects religious considerations all together. This may result in peaceful coexistence, or it may not. There are too many examples of countries where it has resulted in the positive and too many in which it has resulted in the negative.
Iraq was a very secular country under Saddam, yet so many communitities were targeted - specifically Shias. Turkey is a fanatically secular country, yet a Kurdish lady was put in jail for eight years, for using a line of Kurdish in the Assembly. Turkey continously kills Kurds. Pakistan was quite secular under Ayub etc., but look at what happened in 71. Most of the colonialism and the WWs was done and fought by secular states.
In fact, far far more violence. human rights violations, slavery etc. has occured in the 20th century by secular forces than non-secular forces. This is a fact, with statistical evidence. And thus cannot be denied.
This, of course, does not mean secularism is bad. It just means that it is incorrect to automatically equate it with humanism or goodness, as a political concept. In fact, by doing so, you are doing the same thing that religionists do, i.e. taking a social concept, and equating it with a utopian solution.
I really don't think secularism as we see it today will last too long. Secularism, as we see it today, is a very new concept (barely a few centuries old), with its foundations in a European interpretation of Christianity, and its separation from the State. It has become popular, amongst a select group, due to the economic and social progress made by European countries. People tend to equate that progress directly with secularism. When, in fact, many other factors were involved, like democarcy, distrubution of power, literacy rates, free market economy, end of monarchies, an exhaustion with massive wars, industrial revolution, discovery of new lands, colonization and exploitation of non-European peoples, etc.
Even today, no country is purely secular. There is religion in their laws. This is now reaching a critical point due to the debates around gay marriage. These debates will spread to polygamy, and other forms of unions. And will alter the socieites completely. Either people will move back towards religion as in the USA. Or they will move towards athiesm, as in Europe.
I have always felt that it is only possible to have pure secularism in an athiest society. For example, how many individuals with secular concepts, in Pakistan, are willing to support gay marriages. Marriage is purely a religious concept, and in a secular society, the state should have nothing to do with it. There are, after all, more gays in Pakistan, than Ahmedis. Why not fight for gay rights also? Do you support gay marriages?
Within the Pakistani society, secularism and religion are heavily politicized. People use them to hide their faults. An MMA leader will push religion to hide his shortcomings. And BB will push herself as the crusader of secularism, to hide her corruption scandals, as well as the other faults in her party.
If this is not the politicization of religion and secularism, then what exactly is it?
A definition of secularism is as follows:
"1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
3. a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" (www.dictionary.com)
Secularism in no way allows different ideologies to exist peacefully together. All it does is to separate religion from civil affairs or rejects religious considerations all together. This may result in peaceful coexistence, or it may not. There are too many examples of countries where it has resulted in the positive and too many in which it has resulted in the negative.
Iraq was a very secular country under Saddam, yet so many communitities were targeted - specifically Shias. Turkey is a fanatically secular country, yet a Kurdish lady was put in jail for eight years, for using a line of Kurdish in the Assembly. Turkey continously kills Kurds. Pakistan was quite secular under Ayub etc., but look at what happened in 71. Most of the colonialism and the WWs was done and fought by secular states.
In fact, far far more violence. human rights violations, slavery etc. has occured in the 20th century by secular forces than non-secular forces. This is a fact, with statistical evidence. And thus cannot be denied.
This, of course, does not mean secularism is bad. It just means that it is incorrect to automatically equate it with humanism or goodness, as a political concept. In fact, by doing so, you are doing the same thing that religionists do, i.e. taking a social concept, and equating it with a utopian solution.
I really don't think secularism as we see it today will last too long. Secularism, as we see it today, is a very new concept (barely a few centuries old), with its foundations in a European interpretation of Christianity, and its separation from the State. It has become popular, amongst a select group, due to the economic and social progress made by European countries. People tend to equate that progress directly with secularism. When, in fact, many other factors were involved, like democarcy, distrubution of power, literacy rates, free market economy, end of monarchies, an exhaustion with massive wars, industrial revolution, discovery of new lands, colonization and exploitation of non-European peoples, etc.
Even today, no country is purely secular. There is religion in their laws. This is now reaching a critical point due to the debates around gay marriage. These debates will spread to polygamy, and other forms of unions. And will alter the socieites completely. Either people will move back towards religion as in the USA. Or they will move towards athiesm, as in Europe.
I have always felt that it is only possible to have pure secularism in an athiest society. For example, how many individuals with secular concepts, in Pakistan, are willing to support gay marriages. Marriage is purely a religious concept, and in a secular society, the state should have nothing to do with it. There are, after all, more gays in Pakistan, than Ahmedis. Why not fight for gay rights also? Do you support gay marriages?
Within the Pakistani society, secularism and religion are heavily politicized. People use them to hide their faults. An MMA leader will push religion to hide his shortcomings. And BB will push herself as the crusader of secularism, to hide her corruption scandals, as well as the other faults in her party.
If this is not the politicization of religion and secularism, then what exactly is it?
