What’s Wrong with the World

The situation calls for official keepers of the peace, official posses, and official hangmen to protect, rescue, and avenge the innocent.

That sounds like a lot of officials. An increase in tax rates and collection to pay those officials would be part of a solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/world/asia/19taxes.html?pagewanted=all

Step2, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the police in Karachi, etc., turn a blind eye and deaf ear to torture chambers for Christian children kidnapped for ransom because the police are...underfunded. No open season on Christians here, no sirree. Move along, nothing to see.

Good heavens, Step2. That was really a cheap shot. Can you find an example of normal conservatives who begrudge the state taxing for purposes of basic policing?

It's funny how they manage to find the resources to investigate and prosecute allegations of blasphemy...

Step2, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the police in Karachi, etc., turn a blind eye and deaf ear to torture chambers for Christian children kidnapped for ransom because the police are...underfunded.

I'm suggesting that a weak central government combined with huge wealth disparity and almost non-existent taxation naturally lead to police corruption.

Can you find an example of normal conservatives who begrudge the state taxing for purposes of basic policing?
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

I don't think they are corrupt in the usual sense of accepting bribes. Or, to speak more precisely: They _may_ be corrupt in that sense, but I think it's pretty evident that that's not what's going on here. If it were non-Muslims kidnapping Muslim children for ransom, I doubt much that a bribe would persuade the police to look the other way. It's odd that you seem closed to the idea of actual group preferences in, after all, an overwhelmingly Muslim country where there is no particular improbability about the presumption that the Muslim police share the prevalent attitudes towards the Christian minority.

Look at it this way, Step2: If this were some town in the deep American south in the 1930's and blacks were getting the tar beaten out of them, no one was getting arrested, and the victims' families said that the police didn't seem to give a darn, why would one need to hypothesize that the local police were being _paid_ to ignore the violence? A liberal, of all people, ought to be able to grasp the notion of majority hatred for minorities and of the bad influence this would have on law enforcement that protects the minorities from terrible mistreatment. Why make excuses here just because the majority is Muslim?

I don't think they are corrupt in the usual sense of accepting bribes.

I think they are corrupt in the sense of unwillingness to risk offending their politicians by solving any of these cases. All the cards are stacked against them if they upset the politicians or their militant supporters.

If this were some town in the deep American south in the 1930's and blacks were getting the tar beaten out of them, no one was getting arrested, and the victims' families said that the police didn't seem to give a darn, why would one need to hypothesize that the local police were being _paid_ to ignore the violence?

First of all, you are reading my comment as if I claimed this is the only factor to address in this problem. I don't claim that it is; taxation is only one part of the solution. Pakistan doesn't have a strong central government that can send in teams of federal agents and special prosecutors to go after these criminals, even if there was an outcry for them to do so. Pakistan has a relatively strong military and that is their only important, well-funded social institution.

Second, corruption doesn't have to be direct bribery related to these particular crimes. There can be a history of bribery about other criminal activities, but that history simply makes them that much more vulnerable to pressure by militant groups to keep their noses out. There can also be indirect bribery, where a family member receives a good job, or a free car, or some other reward.

Why make excuses here just because the majority is Muslim?

The only excuse I've made is trying to provide you with a partial answer to a complex social problem. If I could snap my fingers and make group X respect group Y I would do it, but since I can't do that I can look at some of the obstacles that have to be overcome and suggest a way to reduce those.

Sorry, the obstacles to be overcome are not primarily economic (except in the sense that more money might allow the Christians to hire some useful body guards or to get the heck out of there). They are religious and ideological.

"Good heavens, Step2. That was really a cheap shot. Can you find an example of normal conservatives who begrudge the state taxing for purposes of basic policing?"

Step2 gave one example but local governments around the country have been laying off public safety folks. Conservatives in Congress have prevented the proper level of local aid during the present economic downturn.

"I'm suggesting that a weak central government combined with huge wealth disparity and almost non-existent taxation naturally lead to police corruption."

"If this were some town in the deep American south in the 1930's..."

Lydia, it's no coincidence that the part of our nation you invoke as an example is the section that ideologically prizes localism, a weak central government and religious fundamentalism. Local officials back then were often working hand in hand with extremists - just like in Pakistan today.

If Pakistan was a secular state with a strong central government this situation could be easily handled just as Grant handled the Klan and Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson handled things in the 1950s and 60s.

The problem isn't Islam per se; it's fundamentalism and traditionalism in an Islamic nation (Islamic Republic of Pakistan).

"Sorry, the obstacles to be overcome are not primarily economic.."

Yes, they are, they always are. Most folks with prospects have better things to do than torture their neighbors children just as folks with prospects would have had better things to do in the 30's down south than lynch their neighbors.

Yes, they are, they always are.

Well, there's the statement of faith.

Most folks with prospects have better things to do than torture their neighbors children

Those poor, economically disadvantaged kidnapping child torturers. They just don't have good enough prospects.

Al, I can't help wondering if you ever realize that you caricature yourself with statements like that.

This is just one more story that settles the matter for me -- partition was a disaster and a terrible mistake. I don't care if Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted his own state for Muslims -- it is obvious that despite all the craziness and problems the Muslims in India have caused, the fact that India is a secular state has made a world of difference to the millions of Christians living in India (and has led to a better life for the millions of Muslims in India as well). I hope India never gives up on Kashmir and if Pakistan breaks up, maybe some of the smarter states will ask India to take them back.

Don't you see, Lydia? If the South has just been more prosperous in the 19th century, the oppression of blacks would have rapidly abated. There was no ideology or prejudice behind it. Just material deprivation. It's always about economics.

Step2's Colorado Springs example is weak. I asked for an example of someone actually disputing the principle that a government may tax to provide for law and order. The Denver Post article was a fairly typical description of the tough budget choices that hit cities during recessions. Only one of five bullet points concerned policing, and all I could find was a vague reference to "dozens" of police and fire that will "go unfilled."

Surely we are not being asked to analogized a handful of unfilled positions to massacres going unpunished in Karachi.

Jeff, actually India is probably better off without all of the Muslims in Pakistan included. If India included them, I'm betting India would be much more of a mess.

Well typical liberal tactics. Every problem is related to money, ie material causes. The Colorado Springs issue sounds like the problem most municipalities are having. In police and fire, pay, benefits, and pensions have been soaring compared to everyone else. For instance in economically depressed Toledo, employees pay almost nothing for their health care, have extremely low deductibles, make up average wages, have the city pick up the employee portion of pension payments, get more time off than the average worker, and get pensions that your average private worker can only dream of. None of these are sustainable. Al's theory that the Feds should pay for it is just part of his desire to have the Feds run everything. It's not principled, just a means to achieve his utopian goals.

Most folks with prospects have better things to do than torture their neighbors children just as folks with prospects would have had better things to do in the 30's down south than lynch their neighbors.

That explains why all of the members of the 9/11 hijacking team were rich men with advanced degrees from Western universities...

"Sorry, the obstacles to be overcome are not primarily economic.."

Yes, they are, they always are. Most folks with prospects have better things to do than torture their neighbors

See, the problem is lack of money. Poor people do evil things out of lack of money.

Of course, when rich people do evil things, it is the money that is the cause. They shouldn't have that wealth.

So, according to the liberal, wealth REALLY IS the root of all evil. If you put "all the wealth" into the government's hands, very soon the wealth will all be squandered away into nothing, and neither the former rich nor the former poor will have anything to fight over. Problem solved. How can conservatives not see something so obvious?

Why do we bother with such drivel?

Although notice that what Grant et. al. did to suppress the clan had nothing to do with economic development. Based on Al's logic, shouldn't Grant have pumped more government funds into the South, thereby reducing economic want and getting rid of the clan? Seems like Al's logic is more along the lines of "Brown People" - give more money/"White that I don't agree with" - send in the troops.

"Those poor, economically disadvantaged kidnapping child torturers. They just don't have good enough prospects."

Lydia, bear in mind that to explain isn't to justify. Religion and ideology (commonly understood) are most always going to be a superficial motivators however deeply the immediate actors believe otherwise. The Pakistani government well understands how to deal with those who displease it (ask the Buto's and the families of out of favor journalists). This is being allowed to happen which means that at some level it serves those who rule Pakistan just as allowing lynching in the the American Southland served the purposes of that ruling class.

"Well, there's the statement of faith."

The noted philosopher Damon Runyon had a saying that I have found very useful,

"The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet. "

and,

"El pueblo unido, por el dinero será vencido."

"See, the problem is lack of money. Poor people do evil things out of lack of money."

I'm not sure it's as simple as "Christians being persecuted by Muslims".

"In another case reported, a so-called “house of tolerance” was opened near a Catholic Church in Ayub Goth where “Christian girls from destitute families are forced into prostitution.” Although the authorities have been made aware of this, they have not taken any action yet. Javed is launching an appeal to ask “for an end to the oppression of our community.”

Kidnapping and forced prostitution are lumpen sort of activities and that class has often been employed by the ruling class to its own purposes. There is no way that those activities are happening without some level of official approval.

"According to a Report by the Asian Human Rights Commission, a human rights watch NGO operative in Asia, “Pakistan failed to guarantee respect for the human rights of its people.” The Commission documented the killings of 18 human rights defenders and 16 journalists in 2011. They had been involved in a process of denouncing evil in society, corruption and Islamic extremism."

Blasphemy prosecutions would seem to fall in with the above. We may safely assume that Pakistani Christians play some what the same role as stigmatized groups everywhere have always played (as Lydia using the American South as her go to example showed).

As Bob Dylan pointed out 50 years ago, societies like Pakistan and the old Confederacy need their safety valves.
This is better viewed as a small part of the timeless pattern of groups being scapegoated for the benefit of the few.

"Although notice that what Grant et. al. did to suppress the clan (sic) had nothing to do with economic development. Based on Al's logic, shouldn't Grant have pumped more government funds into the South, thereby reducing economic want and getting rid of the clan?"

Cold steel and hemp aren't mutually exclusive with giving folks educational, economic, and political opportunities. Given that the whole nation went into a protracted economic slump in the 1870s, I'll certainly agree that it would have been nice to have had fiat money, a central bank and more stimulus ("more" as the railroads were being built).

"Don't you see, Lydia? If the South has just been more prosperous in the 19th century, the oppression of blacks would have rapidly abated. There was no ideology or prejudice behind it. Just material deprivation. It's always about economics."

While I don't believe I ever used the term "rapidly" (I've always assumed a generation or so of occupation would have been required, but who knows), we do have the example of the 1950s and 60s in which troops worked wonders in a short time while decades of oversight by Justice were needed and are still required. And we need to remember the reactionary decisions of the Supremes in the Reconstruction period.

The example of the Israelites in the desert comes to mind; sometimes a generation or so needs to pass away.

Just a thought,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67666123@N00/5278562309/

There is no way that those activities are happening without some level of official approval.

Well, yeah. Just what I say. But not being a materialist determinist about the activity (or inactivity) of officials, I think that's because the officials who are approving are also Muslims and don't care; probably think the Christians have it coming.

I asked for an example of someone actually disputing the principle that a government may tax to provide for law and order.

You asked for an example of conservatives who begrudge taxes to the point they are willing to sacrifice basic police functions. Being a terrible materialist, I am of the opinion that actions speak louder than words. Principles are all well and good, but only if they are followed when it is difficult to do so.

Surely we are not being asked to analogized a handful of unfilled positions to massacres going unpunished in Karachi.

No, I am not asking that. I'm asking that you think about realistic ways you would attempt to fix this problem. Just keep in mind that kidnapping for ransom and other terror tactics are quite common in countries with weak central governments and extremely low taxation.

Pakistan has a GDP of about $175B according to Google's public data information and they had a federal budget of around $29.5b, about 20% of which was for their military. To say that Pakistan taxes lightly is pretty disingenuous. That's a very large central state budget to GDP ratio for such a lightly taxed state...

The real problem with Pakistan is that Pakistan is a conglomeration of 3-4 distinct major groups, at least one of which is essentially indistinguishable from Afghanistan culturally and happens to be in easy marching distance of their capitol. It's mainly the coastal areas that are pretty close to India culturally. A comparison to the US is really not possible. It'd be like a state in which you had the Yankees on one side, and Saudi Arabia on the other side in a federal union.

I don't understand why, of all the misery in that part of the world, we should pray for Chrstains anymore than the others too. There have been far more muslims killed from terrorists than Christians. Al Qeada has killed 8 muslims for every one Christain. It also seems like we have a bit more pull with our allies like Israel, who treat sChristains very badly, than Pakistan.

Lydia,

"Sorry, the obstacles to be overcome are not primarily economic (except in the sense that more money might allow the Christians to hire some useful body guards or to get the heck out of there). They are religious and ideological."

To be blund, wrong. Christains and Muslims have at times lived very peacefully together. Historically, in fact, Christains have been persecuted more by other Christains, like Bloody Mary.

Pakistan has a GDP of about $175B according to Google's public data information and they had a federal budget of around $29.5b, about 20% of which was for their military.

Their military budget is covered up with accounting tricks. It is actually around 30% of their budget, not including the unknown amount going to the ISI. Also, 38% of their budget goes to service their debt.

That's a very large central state budget to GDP ratio for such a lightly taxed state...

A) Their budget relies upon borrowing, not as much as ours, but still around 11%.
B) The average for tax revenue is 35 percent of GDP for democratic developed countries (USA is only 27%). Pakistan's budgeted tax revenues are 15% of GDP, their actual revenue is 10% according to Heritage.
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Pakistan

Russell, I will just say that you definitely make our other liberal commentators look suave, sophisticated, and valuable. I think my time would be better spent doing something else rather than replying.

I forgot to add, Muslims protected Christains in Egypte several times this Arab Spring, even when now, Santorum and republicans support the military dictatorship that refuses to protect them.

I forgot to add, Muslims protected Christains in Egypte several times this Arab Spring, even when now, Santorum and republicans support the military dictatorship that refuses to protect them.

My family has close ties to the Coptic community in Egypt and you are so full of bovine excrement, it's not even funny. One of my relatives got a phone call in the middle of one of those protests from a frightened acquaintance who related more than a few "media unfriendly" stories that completely put the lie to this assertion.

If you need examples, how about while the Muslim community was protecting a few churches, Muslim radicals were breaking into Coptic homes and slaughtering entire families, including small children, with impunity.

I find Russell's desire to range over everything else he wants to talk about (very mildly) interesting. But then, the Religion of Peace (TM) is active elsewhere as well. I just chose to focus on this area of Pakistan where the wonderfulness of sharia and dhimmitude are being vouchsafed to the Christian community.

I'm sure it behooves one to ignore the fact the Muslims in Egypt have been protecting the Coptic Christians, and also to forget that Christians in the West Bank are suffering, from the hands of Israel.

Russell, bag the anti-Israel stuff. I ignored it the first time but am not going to ignore it repeatedly. Not only is it off-topic, but it's highly misleading (perhaps because you have been misled), and I'm not having the thread taken there, so can it.

I'm sure it behooves one to ignore the fact the Muslims in Egypt have been protecting the Coptic Christians, and also to forget that Christians in the West Bank are suffering, from the hands of Israel.

Go talk to actual Coptic Christians and see if you really believe that bull#$%^.

Mike,

I would honestly like to know what b.s. you refer to. This is the sort of article I base my opinions on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353330/Egypt-protests-Christians-join-hands-protect-Muslims-pray-Cairo-protests.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/africa/454257-egypts-copts-berate-army-after-clashes.html

Such horrors are always referred to as "sectarian strife", keep it vague,it leaves the door open for adventures of the imagination. If our media can't bring themselves to openly support the islamists they can at least lay down a smoke screen for them. It's only murder.

/

I think though, often it is just sectarian strife. There are hot spots around the globe with Muslims and Christians fighting over turf. Its really hard to say which side murders the most.

Russell, if it is "just" sectarian strife really, then what you would find is that by and large the law favors neither group, both groups get away with murders pretty regularly. If, OTOH, one side is prosecuted under the law pretty stringently, and the other side is ignored by the law or given a slap on the wrist, then no, it is not "just" sectarian strife, it is a form of persecution.

Russell, mass continual murder, prolonged hatred & over much of the world, is a tad more than sectarian strife. It's not turf that is being fought over, 9/11 wasn't a turf fight, jihad isn't over turf, 1400 years of at best intermittent warfare is not over turf. It is the stain of taught and avidly believed religious hate, one that explicitly calls for war, murder.
It helps to make distinctions, only in the vaguest sense, dishonest actually, can the term sectarian strife be used, and then only to mislead and obfuscate. Bland, safe, and morally blind.

Well, Russell, if you can make "sectarian strife" out of what I'm discussing in the main post, I guess you can do anything. In your head, anyway.

I would honestly like to know what b.s. you refer to. This is the sort of article I base my opinions on.

Whereas I base my opinion on the input my family gets from their Coptic associates who live there and knew plenty of friends and family members who were being attacked or murdered in their own homes by radicals while a handful of Muslims were putting on a media circus in front of a few major churches.

Mike, why is it the Muslim populations fault the military and police won't protect them. They are trying to win their freedom from the military dictatorship. It speaks volumes too, when you say a "handful".

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/01/egyptian_muslims_act_as_human_shields_for_coptic_christmas_mass.html

I wonder when the shift came in the Christian religion to hate people. There are far more good, peaceful muslims than not. Also, as Thomas Rick's points out in his book, Fiasco, it was not just Abu Graib that made Christian look bad in the Middle East, but "when in fact a much larger network of prisons, run by poorly trained soldiers who frequently committed appalling abuses, deeply antagonized Iraqi society and drove men en masse into the insurgency. As Christians, after Iraq, we should be less willing to hate Muslims.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/copts-thank-muslims-for-christmas-spirit

"Copts thank Muslims for Christmas spirit"

Russell, bag the "hate" nonsense. Throwing around the "h" word doesn't make everyone cringe and run for cover around here.

Russell, I assume you saw the Egyptian election results where the more extreme parties won the majority of the seats.

Also, let's say a bunch of moderate KKK members showed up at an African church to show solidarity against church burnings. I doubt you would be claiming it shows the KKK doesn't have serious foundational problems with blacks.

Also, let's say a bunch of moderate KKK members showed up at an African church to show solidarity against church burnings. I doubt you would be claiming it shows the KKK doesn't have serious foundational problems with blacks.

Of course he wouldn't, and he wouldn't be insisting that the voices of the blacks and their associates who tell him that the KKK is still actively, enthusiastically terrorizing them are just so much bovine excrement.