Nazarbayev signs laws for the control of religious groups

[rug]

10/15/2011 12:49
KAZAKHSTAN

Severe penalties for offenders of registration requirement. At least 5 thousand members necessary to comply with the national registration. The existence of dozens between religious groups and churches at risk.

Astana (AsiaNews / Agencies) – Kazakhstan has approved legislation that provides for the restriction of religious freedom. On 13 October, President Nursultan Nazarbayev signed into law two amendments that will come into force from October 24. The Organization for European Security and Cooperation (OECD) has criticized the decision of the Kazakh government, which imposes severe penalties for churches and groups that are not registered or approved by the State. Minorities who do not have the necessary requirements are likely to disappear. Among them many Protestant Christian churches, but also various Muslim groups.

The government passed new laws in just two months without hearing the views of representatives of minorities. Only the Sunni Muslim community and the Russian Orthodox Church had the opportunity to discuss the changes.

Felix Corley, head of the Human Rights Forum 18, close to Protestant Christians said: "These new rules are part of a strategy to increase state control over the entire society."

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Nazarbayev-signs-laws-for-the-control-of-religious-groups-22918.html

[Deep13]

1. Legislating conscience. That has always worked in the past!

Very bad. On their way to Islamic theocracy.

[darkstar3]

2. Once again we see the religious oppressing members of other religions.

[rug]

3. Hardly.

"New law, which authorities say is needed to curb extremism, bans prayer in state institutions."

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia/2011/10/20111014351432694.html

[darkstar3]

4. Hmm.

Well, first they're forcing people to register and "Minorities who do not have the necessary requirements are likely to disappear."
Second, the Sunni Muslims and Russian Orthodox religious groups were the only groups consulted on the new policies.
Third, the CIA World Factbook lists those two religions as nearly equal in adherence within the country, and also at least 91% of the total population when combined.
Fourth, Muslims make up a slightly bigger group, and Russian is the language of business, making the two groups equally powerful in that society.
Fifth, according to the Pew Forum (pdf link), less than 1% of the Muslim population of Kazakhstan is Shiite.
Sixth, Sunni vs. Shiite is a major source of contention and violence in the Muslim world.

Putting this all together, I see the majority Sunni Muslims and their supporting Russian Orthodox friends attempting to prevent influx of, and conversion to, Shiite Muslims.

[rug]

5. Hmmm. the CIA World Factbook. Are you linking to a rightwing site on a liberal board?

:eyes:

[darkstar3]

6. Do you see a link to the factbook?

If you're going to try and insult me, it might help to read more closely so you can get your facts straight. Also, I've never heard of the factbook as being right wing or owned by an ass like Rupert Murdoch.

[rug]

7. Thanks for the tip but no help is needed.

[cleanhippie]

8. Why so daft?

I know those damn facts are pesky little things, but come on, man, you were given a reasonable reply with plenty of facts for you to dispute and show why the reply may be off-base, but instead you go for insult and source bashing.


Stay classy.

[rug]

9. Source bashing is stupid,

[cleanhippie]

11. I see you have digressed into childish, unintelligent responses.

Just like your playmate. Now the two of you can be irrelevant together.

[rug]

12. Actually, it's a reference to the sourcebashing your playmate began this subthread with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x309282#309306

I believe the word was fishwrap.

Too bad his correction is deleted as well.

[darkstar3]

13. You do know the difference, don't you?

I was indifferent to the story you posted, but took issue with you linking to a known right-wing rag, and I was specific about that issue. You didn't like my take on this story, so you posted a one-line dismissal in an attempt to mock me.

You're not funny, but it's funny that you think you're funny. ;)

[cleanhippie]

14. I've recently wondered what it would be like if us R&T regulars were having these discussions

in the real world at a pub or something.

Would they be the same as our online discussions? Would reason and rationality pour from our mouths? Would the ad homs, strawmen, and unsubstantiated statements be made?

Would it break out into a melee?

Would we actually have a real discussion?


Oh, to dream...to dream...

[rug]

16. I know exactly how it would end up.

[laconicsax]

19. Enlighten us. n/t

[cleanhippie]

20. No you don't.

[rug]

21. There is nothing unique about you.

It's quite familiar.

[cleanhippie]

22. Yet another non-answer.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[rug]

23. Neither does your subthread.

[cleanhippie]

24. Still being daft, I see.

[rug]

15. And you didn't bother to see the source at the end of the article.

Consequently your remark was fishwrap.

[darkstar3]

17. Ahem.

"took issue with you linking to a known right-wing rag"
.
.
.
"took issue with you linking to a known right-wing rag"
.
.
.
"took issue with you linking to a known right-wing rag"

[rug]

18. Let me buy you a drink.

[Deep13]

10. Well I figured security was the justification.

It always is.