This is yet another reason to reverse the decades of women retiring earlier than men to having men retiring earlier...

Being a graduate is now of little real world use, but has become a positional good which employers use to reduce the number of applicants to a reasonable amount. So more and more kids are taking Masters, for the same reason. This is a self destructive arms race that merely advantages those employed in the tertiary education sector. Stop it now - with a 25% cut in the number of undergraduate loans available, with the cuts focused towards those subjects that have graduates earning less 20 years down the line.

It's amazing what the tens of thousands of dollars of education spending across the USA has not achieved.

Source please. The cuts in AIDS funding seems to be more a function of general cut backs than anything specifically targeted. But feel free to correct me, and I agree there were a few fundies out there who did claim that at one point, before even they realised that AIDS is an equal opportunities killer across the world.

And what, pray, does that have to do about another religion's fanatics committing criminal damage. Yes, Islam is a very evil religion. But that doesn't excuse another bunch of evil fanatics under a different label ignoring their country's laws to take revenge for an event centuries ago.

USE THE LAW OR DON'T GET PROTECTED BY THE LAW.

If some fanatic's sense of injustice gives them the excuse to ignore the law, then the law has been abandoned for 'might is right'. Which means that you don't get to ask for protection from the law. Ever.

You endorse criminal damage by a Hindu mob contrary to the law of India as acceptable behaviour. I point out the consequences of that position, and you trot out the evidence that Hinduism has some good points. So what? I'm not denying that, I am only pointing out that in the attack on the mosque Hinduism is legitimating criminal evil behaviour. Criminal evil behaviour that if accepted undermines the legitimacy of the state. But you still expect you to be protected by the state.

This isn't about whether Hinduism has good points.
This isn't about whether Hinduism has good points.

It's about whether the attack on the mosque was acceptable or a criminal evil act. If you don't think it was, please explain to me why I shouldn't seek to fire bomb Hindu temples because their presence is unacceptable to me. To repeat, I'm not planning to, but if you can't see why your position justifies my doing so, you're just not thinking logically. And don't trot out some story about righting past wrongs; that's what the state is to do, not some bunch of out of control fanatics.

https://legalclarity.org/are-i...

Suggests that illegals get generous, taxpayer funded coverage.

When the Danes pay for the depredations of the Vikings, we'll consider reparations for slavery - after we get reparations from the Germns for WWII, of course.

That's a horrible story. Every so often living in the land of the NHS is shown to have its attractions; in the UK the NHS would pay those costs in their entirety.

If society is to operate with a reasonable level of public safety, some sort of state apparatus must exist and be granted legitimacy to enforce the law. Yes, of course sometimes that goes badly wrong, or breaks down in times of invasion or civil war. However neither of those conditions existed in India in the 1990s; instead it was operating as a democracy - having resisted Indira Gandhi's attempt impose a dictatorship. Yet in the midst of this democracy ruled by the law a criminal mob of Hindus decide to destroy the place of worship of another religion. This was criminal damage totally ignoring the rights of the Muslims under the law.

As I have said repeatedly, if you regard that behaviour as acceptable, you shouldn't expect the British police to protect you when English mobs destroy your temples and Muslims destroy your idols because they regard them as evil. Totally unacceptable behaviour which, no doubt, the British police would investigate. But you lose the right to that protection if you think it's OK for a Hindu mob to destroy a mosque contrary to the law of India. I hope it never happens, but it's what you deserve.

If a sectarian mob is allowed to destroy a building that offends it, then no one is safe. It is the purpose of 'the state' to ensure order, to prevent / punish crime. For a religious group to challenge that and destroy the religious building of another religion is inherently to deny the authority of the state. That's all that 'political theory' is saying in this situation.

Or are you suggesting that the pogroms against the Jews in Medieval Europe were OK? What about the ethnic cleansing in parts of Yugoslavia in the 1990s? Or the ethnic cleansing of Hindus out of Pakistan?

You want the Hindus of the UK to be protected from Muslims here? Then admit that Ayodhya was an evil act. Otherwise you do not have the right to the protection of the state.

It has ruled the land for many decades. It is the fount of justice, and the one which has the right to reverse the building of the Mosque by the Islamic invaders, not some sectarian mob indulging in criminal damage.

OK, this is political theory, and most people don't have a clue about the ideas it expounds. For example, a core definition of a state is that it has a monopoly of force within its territory; all other users of force are illegitimate and will be suppressed / punished. It's in that context that the destruction of the mosque is so unacceptable.

The mosque demolition was a criminal act of destruction. The war was over 400 plus years ago. A peace treaty happened. It's not for one party to tear up that peace treaty; you use the law, you don't resort to mob violence. Why? Because mob violence is inconsistent with democracy; it's a group imposing its will regardless of the law. That's not justice.

You want to abandon the rule of law? Fine. Just don't expect the British police to come running when some British racists fire bomb Hindu temples in the UK as desecrating our Christian soil with the residences of demons. What's the difference between that and a Hindu mob destroying a mosque?

not the personal ravings of fanatics seeking revenge.