>>There is certainly much to be said about the ill-effects of the nation state.
Like what??
RD: Large nation states have a tendency to become autocratic. Power and money
flows to the center. Local issues, grassroots organizing withers.
Multi-nationals get the upper hand over citizens' representatives.
Diversity looses out; generica wins out. Large standing armies become
affordable; huge outlays to develop WMDs become possible. Borders that can
control the movement of people become feasible.
As you point out, there is much good in the notion of the nation. We are far
better off for having a large India than a bunch of tiny indian states. It
allows large science projects and space exploration. It can reduce petty
wars. But, are we better off with a much stronger center? Does economic
growth that tramples local issues really that good? Will people in Delhi really
be able to take decisions in the best interests of the people who are affected
by the Narmada dam? Does it really help anyone if Washington has the power to
dictate medical marijuana and euthanasia policies in Oregon?
Hello?? increasing autonomy being granted to Scotland by the UK?? How generous
of the UK!
RD: You take away with one hand and then give back with the other, covering
yourself with glory :-) The point to take away is that the
strong-center-weak-state nation-state is being reexamined in some places.
Clearly, this is just in infancy; and may not go anywhere.
Yugoslavia is the opposite situation from what you think it is. Yugoslavia used
to be a strong nation that valiantly fought the Nazis but it was too
independent for the West so they successfully dismembered it - remember Clinton
actually bombing Yougoslavia? They have carved out a little slave country -
Kosovo - that the West is running using it's own muslim terrorists and
drug-runners
RD: Serbia was always a state; Yugoslavia was stitched together. The Croats and
the Serbs were on opposite side in WW2.
>>In the interest of full disclosure, let me admit that I was raised a
>>Hindu....Monotheism >>condemns people like me and even unbaptized babies to
>>hell.
Rajesh, like me previously, you have a completely wrong idea about Hinduism,
monotheism, hell etc. Please re-read Bhagavad Gita and try some Deepak Chopra
books, I was very impressed by the parts in Chopra's Quantum Healing where he
reconciles the Quantum Physics with spirituality
RD: Thomas -I agree that all religions - poly, mono or a- have a lot in common.
However, I assert that mono is different from poly and a- in a fundamental way.
If I were to use CS analogy, religion is a base class; montheism, polytheism
and athiesm are sub-classes. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are instances of
the sub-class Monothiesm :-)
It may be entirely a shortcoming in my understanding of the Christian, Muslim
and Jewish theology. However, in conversations with others of those faiths, I
have never been able to get an explanation that is "complete" and is
"consistent". They either dismiss the "chosen people/infidel/heathen" stuff as
not really in the "holy books/canon/scriptures/theology" (which is the argument
you presented - right?) or they do not see anything wrong with it.
