Was Gandhi a good Hindu

I believe Gandhi was a good Hindu. There are different paths for different people. Gandhi used Jama Yoga, because he was a very wise man. Wise beyond his years. Gandhi used Karma Yoga he became one thru activity and work. His work was the offering to Brahma. The caste system was not important to Gandhi. He helped the sick and poor by helping people understand the caste system is not just. He used non-violent protest to free his country from British rule. When the British authorities hit him, he continued the protest but did not strike back. When some of his countrymen used violence. Gandhi went on a hunger strike until the violence ended. I think Gandhi thought he was a good Hindu. He lived his life in the service of his country and what was right.

What would Gandhii Say

60 injured as mob clashes with police in 'Indian Idol' riots

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Sat Sep 29, 11:20 AM ET

CALCUTTA, India - More than 60 people were injured and dozens of vehicles set ablaze in eastern India when an angry mob demonstrated after a radio host made derogatory comments about the winner of the popular television show "Indian Idol," officials said Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The violence broke out Friday when supporters of Prashant Tamang, the recent winner of the TV singing competition, took to the streets of Siliguri, a town in the eastern state of West Bengal, to protest what they perceived as a radio show host's ethnic slur against Tamang, said state police official R.J.S. Nalwa. Tamang is an Indian citizen of Nepalese origin.

The protesters apparently blocked a road and refused to let an ambulance carrying a patient pass, which led to clashes between Tamang's supporters and a group accompanying the ambulance, said Nalwa.

Intervening police had to fire their weapons and use batons and tear gas in self-defence, said Nalwa. Twelve police officers were injured, he said.

Authorities imposed a curfew in the area Friday, which is located in the Darjeeling district 570 kilometres north of Calcutta. In some areas, the curfew was still in effect Saturday, though police said the situation was under control.

In a message to his fans, Tamang called for peace, saying, "violence has no place in song or music."

What do you think Gandhi would say? Are these people True Hindu's . Do you think non violent protest could be effective today.

Are we doing in Iraq what the British did in India?

While we watched the movie about Gandhi I couldn't help but the revulsion to what the British were doing in India . I hope I am wrong but do you see any comparison's to what is going on in our name in the middle east



New York Times 9-28-07

As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”

And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.

We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn’t get out of their way.

What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.

For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 “armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines.” The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a “trophy video” on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in “joy-ride shooting” of Iraqi civilians.

Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq’s Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.

Iraqis aren’t the only victims of this behavior. Of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died in Iraq, scores if not hundreds would surely still be alive if it weren’t for the hatred such incidents engender.

Which raises the question, why are Blackwater and other mercenary outfits still playing such a big role in Iraq?

Don’t tell me that they are irreplaceable. The Iraq war has now gone on for four and a half years — longer than American participation in World War II. There has been plenty of time for the Bush administration to find a way to do without mercenaries, if it wanted to.

And the danger out-of-control military contractors pose to American forces has been obvious at least since March 2004, when four armed Blackwater employees blundered into Fallujah in the middle of a delicate military operation, getting themselves killed and precipitating a crisis that probably ended any chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq.

Yet Blackwater is still there. In fact, last year the State Department gave Blackwater the lead role in diplomatic security in Iraq.

Mr. Singer argues that reliance on private military contractors has let the administration avoid making hard political choices, such as admitting that it didn’t send enough troops in the first place. Contractors, he writes, “offered the potential backstop of additional forces, but with no one having to lose any political capital.” That’s undoubtedly part of the story.

But it’s also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers’ money to give lucrative contracts to its friends — people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization — but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.

So the privatization of war — no matter how badly it works — is just part of the pattern.

Next Article in Opinion (6 of 17) »

What makes a person words or actions

Gunfight at the S-Chip Corral

Published: September 25, 2007

President Bush accused Congressional Democrats of putting health coverage for poor children at risk by forcing him to veto a bill that he says is a dangerous step toward government-run health care. The opposite is the case. Mr. Bush is the one putting the health of America’s children at risk, threatening to veto carefully crafted legislation that would reauthorize and expand the valuable State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.

We can only hope that fair-minded members of Congress will pass the compromise measure by veto-proof majorities this week. Otherwise, millions of low- and middle-income children would be denied access to a program that has played a critical role in reducing the number of uninsured children over the past decade.

To hear the president tell it, he has long supported the joint federal-state program, and his budget for fiscal year 2008 proposes an additional $5 billion in federal funds spread over the next five years, a 20 percent increase over current levels. What he doesn’t say is that this paltry sum is not even enough to provide continued coverage for all of the children who are currently enrolled, let alone enroll millions more of the uninsured.

A compromise bill approved in recent days by Congressional leaders would boost the funding by $35 billion over the next five years, enough to enroll several million more children above the 6.6 million already participating. The bill deserves wide support. This is by no means a measure designed to score political advantage, as Mr. Bush contends. The compromise retreats from a partisan bill fashioned by House Democrats and largely mirrors legislation crafted by prominent members of both parties in the Senate and approved by a large bipartisan majority, enough to overcome a veto, in that chamber.

It diverges from the Senate bill primarily by overturning a new set of arbitrary, overly stringent rules imposed by the administration to prevent states from providing S-chip coverage to middle-income children, those whose family income exceeds 250 percent of the poverty level. The administration contends that expanded coverage would cause middle-class parents to drop private health insurance for their children and switch to the government program, saddling taxpayers with the bill.

That may happen to some extent, but many middle-class families clearly need help in the wake of cutbacks in employer health benefits. A recent analysis of census data by Urban Institute researchers found that the number of uninsured children jumped by a startling 710,000 last year. Almost half of the increase was in families with incomes between 200 percent and 399 percent of poverty — the very group the administration seems to believe is adequately insured and has no need of S-chip. The compromise bill gives states needed time and assistance to devise the best ways to insure these middle-income people without disrupting private coverage. Meanwhile, the first priority would be to enroll more of the poor.

Divisive provisions that were rammed through the House by Democrats, involving Medicare reforms, have been dropped. All members of Congress now need to let Mr. Bush know that he is the one playing politics with the health of America’s children and then pass this legislation with a veto-proof majority.

Next Article in Opinion (2 of 15) »

The republican party wants to stop health care for poor children. Does this sound like a religious party. The republican party says they hold the moral high ground in all political discussions. What is more important words or action. Should religious leaders protect children's health.

The Path

There is also a path for risk takers. The Raja Yoga stresses mental and spiritual development. Here one works thru various stages to free the mind from anger, lust, hatred, and greed. Another path can be choosing one or more of the gods and devote themselves to those gods and their temples. I think this would be my path. I would choose Shiva. Not only is he the god of death, destruction, disease, he is also the god of dance. And if you ever saw me dance you would say. OH Shiva please help him. Or kill him

I would like your opinion

I saw a video of a college student. He was asking questions of Senator John Kerry. The student was asking tough questions. Questions the senator did not want to answer. About the 2004 election and in this students mind Kerry might have won if not for some underhanded election day tactics. This student was suggesting Kerry should have put up more of a fight on the day of the election. After some time this student was tasered. In front of the student body and the press the student was electrically shocked for asking questions. Should our religious leaders be talking about this incident. Is this the way a civilized country treats is citizens. I was taught love thy neighbor, do onto others as you want others to do to you, and what you do to the least of my brothers that you do onto me. Where is the outcry. What do you think. Should our religious leaders be talking about this.

The Path

The roman catholic church has one path to salvation. People must get to heaven thru Jesus Christ.
This was one of my first problems with the religion I was raised in. I think today they are becoming alittle softer on this view. But how do people who never heard of Jesus get into heaven. How did people before Jesus was born get into heaven. Each person has the same path to heaven. Hinduism has 4 paths to salvation depending on the individuals life, wants, and ideas. For example if you consider yourself an active person you may choose the Karma Yoga. Where the work itself is the offering to Brahma. You become one with Brahma thru activity and work. If this does not sound like you there are 3 other paths you can choose. This is a very interesting concept for my.
I would like to hear what you think.

Sioux Legend of the Buffalo Maiden

I liked the story of the Buffalo Maiden and the peace pipe. It told the story of this tribes quest to be one with the universe. The sun is your grandfather and he is the same to me she said. She represented the Buffalo tribe who sent the pipe. The pipe was to be used as a peacemaker. There will be wars but after the war is over smoke the peace pipe as a binding instrument. Remember the dead, show kindness towards every living thing on earth. Respect your parents. Understand all your necessities of life come from the earth below and the sky above, and the 4 winds.Don't do anything wrong against the elements. This sounds like good advice.

One Religion

I think George was right when he said there is only one religion with hundreds of versions .

One of Judaism's main prophets is Moses.
2 of Catholicism's prophets are Jesus and Moses.
3 of Islam's prophets are Mohammad, Jesus and Moses.

These 3 religions all have 1 all powerful God, with the same beginning, same middle and we will see about the end. Which replaced most of the old worlds multi God religions thru conversions. A large percentage of the worlds population are associated with one of these 3 similar religions. There are many sects, cults, denominations, and congregations that change or rearrange some beliefs, commitments, or codes to form new religions. I can't wait to see what the 21st century will bring.
What do you think?

Results

1.	Neo-Pagan (100%)
2.	Unitarian Universalism (95%)
3.	New Age (87%)
4.	Liberal Quakers (85%)
5.	New Thought (81%)
6.	Scientology (80%)
7.	Secular Humanism (80%)
8.	Taoism (76%)
9.	Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (75%)
10.	Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (73%)
11.	Reform Judaism (72%)
12.	Mahayana Buddhism (67%)
13.	Theravada Buddhism (65%)
14.	Bahá'í Faith (64%)
15.	Sikhism (56%)
16.	Nontheist (48%)
17.	Orthodox Quaker (48%)
18.	Hinduism (45%)
19.	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (40%)
20.	Jainism (37%)
21.	Orthodox Judaism (37%)
22.	Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
23.	Eastern Orthodox (28%)
24.	Islam (28%)
25.	Roman Catholic (28%)
26.	Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
27.	Jehovah's Witness (8%)

Introduction / Belief - Matic

Hi.

I was raised Roman Catholic. For 8 years I went to Catholic Elementary School. I was an alter boy most of those years (someone who helps the priest during ceremony's). Most of my beliefs have changed since then. This survey confirmed that.

I did not even know there were Unitarian Universalists or that my beliefs closely match theirs.

I guess my beliefs will change again as I learn new things in the future. I look forward to learning things from all of you in this class.