Pakistani Man Gets Life Sentence for Following False Prophet

Just to add another point to you statement Phoenix, in our own nation (USA) we have done very much the same thing regarding the Amerinds when we took their children away from their familys, placed them in "Indian Schools" forbid them to speak their native languages or practice their own relgions. While the Muslims adhere to religious purity, our own history shows much the same lack of tolerance.

dyslexia- Interesting point, of which I am unfamiliar. Do you have any documentation that Native Americans can't speak their language or practice their own religion?

That we mistreated the native Americans is a given. That was not for religious reasons but as I suspect as a method of pacification.
The admonition against mixing government and religion is valid. Now if we can only get King George to understand that.

The reward list of the colony of Pennsylvania, under Governor Penn, published on the 7th July, 1764, is typical of the times. The 18th century price-list for a human life:

For every:

Captured Indian, more than 10 years old - $150.00

Scalp of a killed Indian -$134.00

Captured woman or boy, under 10 years of age - $130.00

Scalp of a slain squaw - $ 50.00

phoenix i did find this reference:
"In 1870, Congress authorized an annual appropriation of $100,000 "for the support of industrial and other schools among tribes otherwise not provided for,..." The facilities involved were run by various churches and missionary societies which, in 1869, had been provided with overall authority to act in behalf of the government, appointing all Indian agents and hiring all personnel employed on the reservations. Attendance at these mission schools was made mandatory by regulation on many reservations for all native children aged six through sixteen." (Jaimes p.380)

Speaking any language other than English was strictly prohibited, as was any attempt to adhere to any Native spiritual practice. The force that lay behind these prohibitions, is readily seen upon reading this statement from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs E.A. Hayt:

"I [have] expressed very decidedly the idea the Indians should be taught in the English language only...There is not an Indian pupil whose tuition is paid by the Untied States Government who is permitted to study any other language that our own vernacular - the language of the greatest, most powerful, and enterprising nationalities under the sun. The English language as taught in America is good enough for all her people of all races [emphasis added]" (Jaimes, p.380)

one last reference then i will shut my pie hole:
Separation of church and state seemingly did not apply when it came to Christianizing Indians. In the 1890's the US government in the name of the Indian Office stipulated that students in government schools were to be encouraged to attend churches and Sunday schools. The reformers, the government and society in general, knew Christianity was essential for the development of the "good" Indian. It mattered little at the time that the governmental mind and the Christian mind were in fact one. Church and state shamelessly walked hand in hand.

GWBush has approved funding of religious based social programs. This is just the beginning of the wedding between church and state. c.i.

I'm not sure where I read it, but it seems that women are returning to wearing burkas and losing their freedoms in Pakistan.
So much for democracy in Pakistan. c.i.

By the way, what is the connection of the British administration policies and the U.S. practices, Dyslexia? IMHO, there was no USA in 1764, so the authorship of the cannibal-style document is completely British, and not American.
I am not so much wondered with Pakistani practices. If Islamic Republic of Iran may make a decision of sentencing to death in absentia Salman Rushdie, why cannot another Islamic Republic treat its citizens in the similar way?
And it is not so much correct to compare the Christian bygones to modern Islamic reality. Inquisition tribunals constitute a part of the Roman Catholic Church history, but this does not mean that heretics are being burnt at stake in Spain up to date.

And one more assumption: IMHO, Christianization of the American Indians was instrumental for their better integration into the American society. Sharing common values based on the common faith alleviates mutual understanding of Whites, Blacks and Indians.

Uh-oh. I'm backing slowly away from this comment, otherwise I might have to go on the warpath again!

Why warpath? Maybe better to say the following: "Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominem bonae voluntatis", or "Glory to the God in Heavens, and on the Earth peace to people of good will"?

yikes

Steissd -- Even though you are convinced of the rightness of your beliefs, the truth is, your wanting to exchange anyone else's beliefs for your own is not right. It is not good.

How much would you grump if a Muslim or a Hindu (who of course, wouldn't) demanded you become an adherent of Islam? There is no difference except you happen to think you're right as, I'm sure, the Muslim (or the Hindu) does.

The Native Americans consisted of many many different tribes. They had religious beliefs and stories that were consistent, that were loved, and that kept their community together.

It is the pinnacle of religious hype to say "I" ought to believe what "you" believe. Rude, too. This country was originally founded by people who wanted to be free to choose what they believed.

The important thing was the Freedom, not the Belief.

There is, there will be, no Peace on Earth when people are not Free.

when the spanish priests arrived in San Diego California they gave the local amerinds 2 choices-they could convert to catholicism or they could be killed. the locals having a differing opinion promptly ate the catholics, defering, for a time, their conversion.

dys, The natives evidently lost, because those Spanish missionaries built 22(?) missions in California subsequently. c.i.

it was only a temporary deferment

so i take it you think that religion is qualitative, some are better than others-more real-more valid- in 1854 Chief Seattle wrote:
Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His. Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land. Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never return. The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to His paleface children. We never saw Him. He gave you laws but had no word for His red children whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill the firmament. No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us.