Hi everyone. Hope your commute was nicer than mine. I spent it struggling to breathe as more and more desperate passengers crammed onto London's Central Line. I'm not having much better luck at the office, where I've had to scrounge for a desk and a chair to sit in. At least my husband packed my lunch! Speaking of husbands (or wives), we discussed the impending announcement of divorce in France's first family. It's expected that Nicholas and Cecilia Sarkozy will announce the breakup of their marriage this week... It got us thinking about the balance between success and happiness. Which is more important to you? Have you chosen work over a relationship? What impact has it had? Is it inevitable that great success brings great personal sacrifice?

We're looking at that for tomorrow. Meanwhile, here are today's topics:

SHOULD THE BLACKWATER GUARDS BE TRIED IN IRAQ?
It is now a month since the incident when Blackwater guards opened fire on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, killing at least 17 people. Meanwhile, Lubna in Baghdad sent us this email a few days ago:

Iraq's human rights minister, Mrs. Wijdan Salim says the Blackwater guards should be tried in Iraq and punished accordingly.

Is she right?

Does Iraq have the right to try them? Should they push ahead, even if it means the departure of thousands of private security personnel from Iraq? Or do the guards deserve to face justice at home, not least because they are providing a vital service under hellish circumstances?

Here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7046272.stm
Post here: www.bbcnews.com/worldhaveyoursay

CROSSING THE LINE
Turkish lawmakers are debating whether or not to authorize military force against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Ankara says the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) is a terrorist group that enjoys free movement in northern Iraq and blames it for the deaths of at least 15 Turkish soldiers in the past two weeks. If approved, the measures would be valid for a year and would allow multiple cross-border operations. Both Iraq and the US are worried and have urged Turkey to talk, rather than fight.

But if its people are being attacked, does Turkey have a right to respond, even if it means crossing the border?
Here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7046114.stm

Speak to you later,
Anu

It's true. My colleague, Mark Doyle, who is the BBC's developing world correspondent, coined that memorable phrase a few years ago in a documentary about Congo's rich mineral mines. Tantalum is an ore used to make capacitors in cell phones, DVD players, laptops and games consoles.

So the next time you watch a film on your DVD player, or send a text from your mobile phone, spare a thought for Congo, home to the world's second largest rainforest.... and home, tragically, to the worst conflict since World War Two, in which more than four million people have already died.

Interestingly, Congo also provided the uranium used by the US to build the bombs dropped over Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WWII.

The name 'Congo' means 'hunter' and is coined from the Bakongo ethnic group.

I'll include a link to the history of Congo for those of you who are interested, but suffice it to say, the country has been plagued by instability since its independence from Belgium in 1960. The country's first Prime Minister and President didn't get along, so power was usurped by army-head, Joseph Mobutu. Funded in part by the CIA, which wanted a bulwark against communist forces in Africa, Mobutu ruled Congo with an iron fist, extracting millions in personal wealth from the country's diamond and mineral mines.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the US lost interest in Mobutu and he was eventually toppled by Laurent Desire Kabila in 1997. After Kabila's assassination in 2001, his son Joseph was named head of state. Today, he rules as president after an election in which he won nearly half the votes.

But despite those elections, Congo remains in turmoil. President Kabila has ordered the rebel leader General Nkunda to surrender his forces by today. But he refuses, saying he's protecting the Tutsi minority from Hutu extremists. His forces have been accused of horrific abuses like rape, torture and murder.

TONIGHT:

Is it time for the rebels in Congo to surrender? Would that help Congo achive lasting stability? As I write this, my colleague Priya is shouting down the telephone to someone in Goma, asking if they can come to our local BBC studio.

Here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7043693.stm
Here's the background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
Email us your questions: worldhaveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

SUPER-NANNY
Do you depend on TV shows to help you raise your children?

According to a leading doctor here in the UK, parents are suffering a 'crisis of confidence' and are increasingly turning to sensationalist TV shows instead of using their own common sense to raise their kids.

Have we forgotten how to be parents?
Here's the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/nparent114.xml
Post your experiences here: www.bbcnews.com/worldhaveyoursay

Ciao,
Anu

I've never spent much time reading about Britney Spears before today. I have to say I'm still pretty undecided about whether or not it was right to talk about the attention she's been receiving.

The majority of NO BRITNEY messages came from those of you in America who emailed while we were on air to say, 'We get enough useless celeb news here.' But Togo in Kampala texted to say, "Britney is part of the social fabric! Go on BBC, balance the 'diet'. Let's talk about her."

Tomorrow, we'll take up Muhammad Asim Munir's suggestion that it's time to talk about Pakistan. The presidential election is on Saturday.... it's been a tremendously tumultuous time there, with protests and opposition against President/General Pervez Musharraf growing. Osama bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan according to one reputable poll, than Mr. Musharraf... Is democracy possible in Pakistan? How can the people of Pakistan achieve it? Why does the rest of world shy away from calling Pervez Musharraf a dictator, as categorically as they do with Burma's generals?

Trawling your comments on the BBC's forums, and looking on the web... the biggest topic of conversation by far is..... Britney Spears.

Don't groan. It seems lots of you follow Britney's custody troubles, the allegations of possible drug abuse, and the acres of coverage she generates. During our meeting this morning, I made the case that we had to talk about Britney and it's fair to say the room immediately split 50-50.

"She's a mediocre pop-star, who cares?" retorted one of my colleagues. "Yeah but she's also a brilliant young business woman," said another. Why are you so obsessed with Britney? Do you care if she's a good mother? If you're sick of celebrity culture, how would you cover it if you were in our shoes?

“A Family Court commissioner has ruled - and about time - that shameless, panty-less, gum-snapping, head-shaving, alcohol-swilling, drug-seeking pop slut Britney Spears is unfit to raise grass, let alone kids.”

BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON?
According to the Associated Press, forty percent of all Americans have lived under a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Hilary Clinton wins next year's presidential election, that number will no doubt go up even more.

There's been alot of talk about whether or not America is headed for dynastic politics.

Would you NOT vote for Hilary solely because her husband has already been President?
Do powerful political families bring stability and experience, or do they represent a strangle-hold on power?

If you're in India, Congo, Dubai, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines or Argentina -- do you think political dynasties should be banned?

Here's some interesting reading.

TOMORROW: IS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE IN PAKISTAN?

ALL NEXT WEEK: SOUTH AFRICA

Don't forget all next week Ros and the team are broadcasting from South Africa.
They'll start off on the Zimbabwe border, talking about immigration.
On Tuesday, they'll broadcast live from the Kaizer Chiefs soccer ground.
On Wednesday: Does the ANC still represent South Africans?
And on Thursday, between sampling the delicacies at a braai (BBQ), you can chat to local farmers about land reform.
Finally, on Friday, World Have Your Say will come to you from the Zula bar in Cape Town to ask: is South Africa really the rainbow nation it aspires to be?

Also, thanks to Guy in Australia who takes up Edward's criticism of my linguistic skills and by extension, Americans in general:

"I’m so sorry to hear you had to grow up in America – please accept my condolences. Edward and I will no doubt both agree that you have coped remarkably with such a disadvantage."

G'day sport, Anu

AND HERE ARE YOUR EMAILS....

...DYNASTIES

Martha Grover, Portland Oregon

I think political dynasties do undermine democracies. Power and money are pooling into too few hands. And never have I seen more distrust and acceptance of conspiracy theories since the two bushes have been in office and now hillary is running which will only make it worse.

Justin - Portland, Oregon

I am an Obama supporter, and the thought of Hillary becoming the nominee makes me want to vote for Ron Paul. Dynasties are un-American and threaten the stability and legitamacy of our political future.

Emily

If a member of a political dynasty is elected in a true democratic election, I have no problem with political dynasties. Hillary is a great example of how experience can be gained and leadership strengthened by having a family member holding political office, as are the Kennedy's and others.

Anon, Oregon

You have been talking about dynastic families but what about those two party systems that are dynastic in their own right.

Anon, Singapore

Singapore has been ruled by Lee Kuan Yew since independence. He installed his son, Lee Hsien Loong as the PM after a seat warmer, Goh Chok Tong who was Lee Kuan Yew's "yes man". The Lee Family has such an overwhelming control over the media and judiciary, there is no room for any free political expression. The father, son and the daughter-in-law control the wealth of the country as they are in charge of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). I sincerely hope there is some mention of the dictatorship dynasty here in Singapore.

Jude - Vancouver, Canada

The road to pre-ordained success in circles of powers starts early I'm afraid. I'm particularily concerned by the way limited positions in U.S. universities are given to students whose parents also attended, the legacy system. Higher learning is key to everything that comes next, and this depressingly incestuous system denies many truly capable individuals an opportunity to serve their nation and the world.

Samuel Weaver, USA

I believe that the whole idea of democracies is that you can choose to vote for whom you wish! Thus, if you don't agree with the dynasty that is attempting to gain power then simply don't vote for the
person that's running for office.
Also, may we really consider Hilary Clinton part of a "Clinton Dynasty"? She's married to a Clinton, not a blood relative. Now if Chelsey was to run, that would be a dynasty scenario.
Thank you for your time.

Martin, Amsterdam

Wealth and Power have always been handed down through family networks. Occasional ballots do not change the basic dynamics of the feudal societies to which western elites want to export their patronage, or of established western plutocracies.

Dan Hortsch, Oregon

If the presidential election choice comes down to Hillary Clinton and any Republican, Hillary gets my vote. She will be a good president. The Democrats have the luxury of choosing from a number of good candidates:
Obama, Edwards, maybe former New Mexico governor Richardson, Sen.
Biden. Any one of them is better than the Republican lineup.

The notion of a new person not tied to the past has merit. However, I think Hillary Clinton has grown as a U.S. senator and from her time in the White House as an advisor to Bill.

As for George W. Bush: He is so removed from his father in terms of his ability, he almost does not continue a dynasty. His father, if in office more recently, would not have been the disaster that George W.
Bush has been.

Steve, USA

All this criticism of the US about dynasties is a little ironic. In the UK, you don't even have the ability to chose the person that is on your money! We get to at least choose our head of state! Yours is head of state by fact of birth! Then the People of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are stuck with the UK head of state on their coins, and Canadians have her on their $20 bill, and I'm sure the Aussies and Kiwis have her on some of their paper notes too! The BBC should look at their own country about dynasties before looking outward!

Marlene, Hillsboro, OR

I don't recall --- was there a big concern over "political dynasty" in the US when W was running or has this emerged because of the potential of another "Clinton"?

Jude Kirkham, Vancouver, Canada

The road to pre-ordained success in circles of powers starts early I'm afraid. I'm particularily concerned by the way limited positions in U.S. universities are given to students whose parents also attended, the legacy system. Higher learning is key to everything that comes next, and this depressingly incestuous system denies many truly capable individuals an opportunity to serve their nation and the world.

Cathleen,

I think the "Clinton again" phenomenon is a reaction to disaster with Bush2. We need the experience of the Clintons to clean this mess up that
Bush2 has created. "Clinton again" has nothing to do with dynasties. I do think Bush2 is a disaster dynasty.

Andrew Stamford, Australia

I still believe that circumcision is a form of assault, some call it child abuse. After all a child cannot make the decision for himself and is not afforded the luxury to be able to wait until he is old enough to choose whether he wants to have his penis mutilated. Let's face it that is what it is. I don't see that it is any different to what religious and cultural groups do to girls. Less damage to boys as their sexual organ still functions, but none the less it is being mutilated. Arguments of hygiene and health always crop up, but those boys and men who remain intact do not fare so badly for not having this done. As for cultural aspects, perhaps you can justify anything any act if you do it for long enough and to as many people as you can. You would not tattoo a child and if you pierced a baby with metallic objects social services would probably be called in to investigate, so why is circumcision so well accepted?

John Salem, Oregon, USA

Americans are suspicious of dynastic politics but we also try to give people the benefit of a doubt and not rule someone out simply because they're related to someone else. That being said, America will never have another president Bush any more than England will have another monarch named John.

Ronald Panaligan, Manila, Philippines

there are two kinds of political dynasties in the philippines:

1.) the remnants of the landlord class who are trying to secure their lands
2.) the succeeding generations of politicians who 'benefited' in their stay in office and tries to secure their post in politics which they consider their family business.

Chris, Seattle, USA

I don't think it is fair to argue that we have a Clinton dynasty, even saying a Bush dynasty is a stretch considering there has only been two. However the primary's have not even happened yet, I'm voting for Obama and hoping he will win the Candidacy, not because he is not a Clinton, but instead because I think he is the best candidate, I think it is unjust to claim Americans are lazy voters simply because we have had two Bush's.

Anonymous

The presidential election is a lot more complicated during this run. Not only do we have a familiar face :"Clinton", we also have other layers to consider. If either Clinton or Obama are elected President it will be the first woman or the first African American president. And that layers things with even more questions on what will happen.
Clinton not only is relying on her name but the fact that she's showing herself as being a strong woman.

Steve, USA

How are dynasties "unamerican" or "undemocratic"?? People have the choice to not vote for these people. Are we suggesting that people by virtue of whom they were born to shouldn't be allowed to run for office?
Is that American or democratic? Unless somebody is pointing a gun at your head, telling you to vote for another Bush, another Clinton, or another Kennedy, its really dishonest to say its undemocratic, because people are free to vote for who they want to vote for!

John Anthony, Oregon

Americans are suspicious of dynastic politics but we also try to give people the benefit of a doubt and not rule someone out simply because they're related to someone else. That being said, America will never have another president Bush any more than England will have another monarch named John.

Jon Davis

Is the U.S. Presidency under the Bush's and Clintons really a dynasty? Ultimately, the person that receives the most votes from the electoral college wins the election. This has worked since the ratification of the U.S. Constitutions. A candidate should not be penalized for what their parents have done. I certainly don't want my parents deeds to effect the potential for my future. They should have the same right to run for office. Let the voters decide. I do believe that campaign funding plays a major role, more than family association. There should be a cap on the amount of money a candidate can spend to level the playing field and take influence away from people such as the recently incarcerated Clinton contributer, Hsu.

Dave Price, Oregon

Let's not get too wrapped up in talk of "dynasty." Does this really qualify? Two four-year terms limit the notion in a big way. So, too, does the roll of the dice that is reproduction. Even the most ardent conspiracy theorist doesn't fear a Jenna Bush presidency.

It's not dynastic power. It's retail politics. Name recognition is the name of the game. James Baker, George Schultz and the gang didn't hand-pick George W. Bush to be their candidate because of his SAT scores.

Opting for the biggest name can cut both ways, though. I'm casting my primary vote for Barack Obama. In the general election, Hillary will fall prey to all the political dirt dug up during her husband's eight years in office, and she cannot survive it.

Jesse Smith in Portland Oregon

in America the elections process is based entirely on money
the majority of our senators are millionaires, the president and vice president are both multi millionaires, but very few common people are millionaires.
this subverts democracy
I think "ruling aristocracy" is a more accurate description than "dynasty"

Vernon

It seems ironic that when bigotry and hatred are mentioned we should be associating them with belief in God. This can happen though if we have "traditional religion" without the Spirit so to speak. As far as the Christian understanding goes we are all made in God's image but lost our spiritual connection to God when humankind decided to be autonomous and independent of God. This is where atheists find themselves and I fear for a society built on atheism where "man" is God (Naziism, Communism etc). Belief in God inspired humankind's greatest endeavours in art, music, the humanities etc. The bible says the god of this world has blinded the eyes of unbelievers. God is Spirit and He is spiritually discerned and atheists as a whole can be compared with members of the Flat Earth Society i.e. if we can't detect something with our physical senses it doesn't exist.

But to get back to the point originally brought up - the moral code came from God's word, the scriptures and where people have submitted themselves to God they are no longer dominated by their lower nature but by the Spirit. Then society is uplifted and we get unity, love, harmony, reconciliation, peace, joy - a far cry from bigotry, hatred etc and a wonderful choice to put to our children!

...ON BRITNEY AND CELEBRITY OBSESSION

Ken in Cleveland

I don't think the world neccesarily loves Britney as much as they love being voyeurs. Seeing a star suffer somehow makes people feel better about themselves and distracts them from worrying about real life. It's just too easy to understand the simple problems of a simple woman and ignore the complex suffering around the world.

What do I think about your debating this? Leave it to the paparazzi. I listen to the BBC every day, but today I am turning my computer off until your show is over.

Eoin, Dublin, Ireland

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE no more about brainless, asinine white trash Spears

Brian - Princeton, NJ, USA

Covering britny does not lead to greater human knowledge and understanding. If someone wants to find out about britney they can go to another news source etc, and this other news source won't be covering the important items that the bbc was does.

Marguerite in Portland Oregon

How about turning the tabloid trash into a discussion about the effects of drug and alcohol abuse on young children, and about the need to teach people appropriate parenting skills before they have children?

Matt, Oregon, USA

As a young American who has to search for an outside view on my own county and world issues, because of my nations lack of a global view, I believe a subject matter such as Brittney Spears on a network such as the BBC is extremely detrimental to your credibility.

We have millions of people in the US that are tired of hearing our American based networks covering these subject and labeling them as newsworthy. Let's focus on real issues such as Darfur, Basra or ANY other item of interest besides some pop star who may or may not be more pathetic than one of her Ex-Husbands.

John Wallace, Vancouver

First-Britney: Once again, you're appealing to the masses instead of ignoring the ratings and discussing something truly important. Surely, you can find another topic and leave this one to the entertainment cable channels.

Second-Dynasties: At least in the US, the idea that dynasties in a democracy somehow undermine the democratic process is ridiculous. The President is elected by the people via the electoral college, regardless of their family political history. Whether they belong to a dynasty is purely coincidental. When we get sick of the family, we'll vote for someone else.

Now, how about more of a discussion about what the individual can do to have an impact on the oppressive Myanmar government or the situation in Darfur. Thanks for your forum.

Chris Bartolini, Los Angeles

Sad to hear that you will give attention to that sad train wreck...makes you part of the problem. If I want fluffy celeb gossip there are plenty of venues here in Los Angeles. To suggest Britney is bigger than Burma (Myanmar thank you) is pandering to the lack of proportion popular in the media.
Seriously guys it's part of your job to raise the bar not give in to mediocrity. Think I will see what's on Radio 4...

Marguerite, Oregon, USA

How about turning the tabloid trash into a discussion about the effects of drug and alcohol abuse on young children, and about the need to teach people appropriate parenting skills before they have children?

Darlene Wiersig, Oregon, USA

A definite NO to any more talk about Brittany. I thought World Have Your Say was interested in educating and informing listeners. I can't think of anything that I can learn from Brittany. The press, especially public radio, should be the place where the star-worshipping crap stops.
PS I turn you off a good part of the time anyway because I find many of your programs uninformative. I don't listen to rant-and-rave commercial talk radio and your programs sometimes seem similar.

Andrew Horn, Berlin

The person who just said that you can't blame the press for doing what they do - ie this kind of obsessive celebrity coverage - because that's what the people want so you can't blame them for giving it to them, because that's how they make money is pretty off his rocker. That kind of logic allows that dope dealers, for example, are to be excused - after all they are giving people what they want and that's how they make money. They're only making a living, right?

Bob Payette, USA

Ditto to what Jennifer says. It is on all of the news channels. The only ones that don't dwell on it is BBC, until know and NPR There are so many other things you can concentrate on, this should not be one of them. Sorry if I spelled her name wrong we have a Brittany Dog.

Glenn in Canada

Come on lets deal with real issues, tell Britney to get professional help end of story

Anon

More Burma [Aung San Suu Kui], More Putin /Kasparov, more Sudan, more Iraq, more Mugabe problems more eylmer fudd [Ahmadinejad ahma ahma din din din e jad] more meat no fluff

L

People are initially excited by the glamour and the entertainment, and then become interested
in the shadow side of celebrity success.

It provides a catharsis and escape from our own everyday problems.

Jon Bulette

i'm turning your program off for today. the meta "discussion about the britney discussion" approach is as boring as the britney discussion itself. the bbc should stick to stories that commercial outlets do not cover.

Grant, USA

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?
Now you're discussing the importance of takling about her.
Cut it out.
Come to your senses....PLEEEZE!!

Camilla Hadlock

Britney Spears is used by the media to distract us from the real, horribly serious issues of world news. It is a shame that you would waste your valuable forum discussing her. Why not discuss how the phenomena of celebrity encourages people to ignore the real and dangerous issues we face every day?

Jon Davis, Kentucky

Britney Spears is the easy story for the media. It is self made, no research needed. That is why her escapades are so prevalent. The good news stories that I am used to getting at BBC take research and hard work. I doubt her story is that different from that of the many examples of incompetent parenting that exist, especially where drug use is involved. Is this the same fate that Britney will see?

Andrew, Australia

Personally I think people lead such empty lives that they need to project onto these people to find some value in their own lives. Think about it and you will see that you are better educated, mentally stable and most likely a more interesting person.

Seriously, if you look into what it is you do and your own soul then you find much more value in it than you do. OK here is someone who is rich and famous, but should her nail polish or child's boots be so important. The public ultimately fawns all over them and places them up upon that pedestal.

Ultimately your political commentators summed it up best. Ignore it and it will go away.

Russ in Portland, Oregon

There is a word in German for the perverse interest in celebrity. It is "schadenfreude" (sp?), which translates as deriving pleasure at another's misfortune. This disposition is likely hard-wired in the limbic system of the brain. If so, it would be very difficult to overcome, like any addiction.

Robert Gass

I don't think dynasties are much of an issue here. I think debate here will be drawn on party lines. Republicans thinking of the Bush family will say dynasties are benign or good. If they are thinking about Hillary they will say they are benign or bad. The same for Democrats.

I started listening to your show 2 days ago, and I was very disappointed to hear that Britney would be a topic today. I understand the comment that it's good for children to see some gory details about her, but I doubt children are the demographic of this program. Britney is a very shallow topic. I predict most of the comments and discussion will be about whether or not she is a worthy topic for the show. When the worthiness of a topic is called into such debate before it can even be discussed, then it probably is not worthy. As a US citizen I'm embarrassed to see that our trivial news is so pervasive.

Steven Corran, USA

Please guys, this is demeaning the BBC and your show by even discussing Britney Spears. The only thing that might make this worthy is the horrible role models girls have, and that they actually want to emulate these horrible role models. Your average every day woman doesn't have millions of dollars, so if they think they can not have a day job, can party every night, and act in irrational and crazy ways, they will not get very far in life, and certainly won't be able to live independently if they want to. I'm guessing that feminists are appalled by the horrible role models girls have, and that girls look up to and emulate these horrible behaviors. It's a shame that more women don't look up to female astronauts (though maybe not Lisa Nowak!) or physicists rather than someone who earns a living from basically selling sex appeal.

Stephen Reynolds, Oregon, USA

It's not that celebrities are never newsworthy, just that they seldom are, and they get way too much coverage in the so-called "news" media, at the expense of real news, which is covered more inadequately every year.

Being a celebrity is extremely destructive for the poor folks who "enjoy" it, as the career of Britney Spears so well illustrates. If BBC wants to do some good, it might put together a documentary on the huge forces that almost inevitably distort a celebrity's life, especially if he or she has attained that exalted status at a young age.

Britney Spears makes, perhaps, a good cautionary tale--O youth, aspire not to be a celebrity! As a role model, she is a disaster, because she was too young to recognise the danger when she was elevated to that fatal status.

Those who want to gossip about celebrities should certainly have their outlet, perhaps on an audience-participation radio programme. But not, please, on the BBC, unless there is truly compelling reason.

Dan Hortsch, Oregon, USA

Forbes magazine studied sales of celebrity magazines in the United States and found that issues with Britney Spears on the cover sold poorly. She appeared often, but other celebrities sold much better, Jennifer Aniston being the most popular. Britney finished near the bottom and just above Paris Hilton.

Scott Millar, Oregon, USA

Your questions about celebrity have a very simple answer which few people are willing to admit: media content is now determined by what the average person is interested in and unfortunately the average person is just that: AVERAGE. They have an average intelligence level and average taste. The result you now see average crap in all forms of media and entertainment.

This is also why there are so many problems with the seemingly good idea of democracy and how someone so dumb like Bush can get into office, because the average decides, and the average is often wrong. It is an unfortunate conundrum about the world that I never hear anyone discuss.

Britney? No, no, no. Here in the U.S., we're bombarded with Britney "news" every day. Someone mentioned that we should talk about her to teach kids that what she's doing is wrong, but in fact we're teaching them that bad behaviour will get you a lot of attention. Talk about it all you want, but if you don't mind I'll switch off and find some real news somewhere else.

It's a one topic show today...

IMAGINE NO RELIGION?
Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist who argues that belief in God is irrational and harmful to society. His book, The God Delusion, has been on best-seller lists and has ignited debate about religion's role. Does religion fuel hatred, bigotry and war, as Dawkins argues? Or are his critics right: there is good religion, just as there is evil science? Read the critics on Dawkin's own site here.

Lots of you have written to us saying you want to talk about atheism. Some of you say atheists are more discriminated against than homosexuals. Others argue that if Christian and Jewish lobbies have influence, particularly in America and Britain, why shouldn't atheists?

Would the world be better off without religion? Dawkins argues that you wouldn't describe a child as 'Republican' or 'Marxist'... so should children be brought up without religion too, until they're old enough to choose for themselves?

Yesterday, Muhammad Asim Munir in Gujranwala sent us this email, comparing Pakistan to Burma:

"My question to WHYS is, "Why do you avoid calling Musharraf a dictator, whereas the same thing is happening in Pakistan as what is being done by the regime in Burma?"

Pakistan's election is on Saturday... and it's going to be ugly whichever way you look at it. Over the weekend, protestors were beaten up by riot police. Today, 86 opposition politicians resigned.

If you're in Pakistan-- do you plan to vote? What would you say to President/General Musharraf if you had the chance? Does the rest of the world have double standards when it comes to Pakistan? Is democracy possible there?

A plea: If you're taking the trouble to articulate your views, why not share them with the rest of World Have Your Say's listeners by coming on air? It's only a global conversation if you add your voice to it. Please include your telephone number when you post below (We'll remove it before we publish your comment... and I promise it doesn't go beyond the small World Have Your Say team).

Bye for now,
Anu

HERE ARE THE COMMENTS YOU EMAILED TO US DURING THE PROGRAMME...THERE WAS A HUGE RESPONSE...AND VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE MANAGED TO POST COMMENTS (HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE FIXED SOON!)

Chester - Lusaka, Zambia

There is not much difference between Richard Dawkins and the Taleban.
Both are extremists and intolerant of beliefs.

Ken in Cleveland

i was raised to be a free thinker and chose atheism nearly 20 years ago. When people learned of my godless ideology, I was constantly berated by Christians trying to shame or convert me. Because of the way I was treated by my peers and adults, I do feel it is abusive to force children into a faith. Religious upbringing fosters intolerance and fear at an early age.

Michael

I have grown up all my life in a Christian family where strong Christian values have been instilled in us and I still think that God exists. However, I think that the world would be a better off place off place if there were no religions. For some religions such as the born again movement around the world which has its roots in America, they have taken this as a chance to make a quick buck out of their unsuspecting and desperate followers. In Uganda, a few months back, all there was in the media were stories of how "pastors" weree fleecing their followers. I think, we should also let children grow up and decide on whether they want to have religion in their lives for themselves and not force them to have religion in their lives, which is like brainwashing a person right from childhood. Besides, which is the right religion?

Isabelle - Belgium

I happen to be an atheist. I grew up in a vaguely traditional family who sent me to a religious school but as far as my memory can go, I never believed in the existence of one or several Gods. I never believed some kind of superior creature(s) who created the universe.

Yet what has always seemed pretty weird and dangerous to me is to believe that superior creature also handed us the “instructions for use”.

The Bible, the Gospel, the Coran, the Bagavat Gîta… those are all interesting writings, but I find it immensely dangerous to consider them absolute truth and interpret them literally. To me those texts are mythologies, just like the Greek mythology, full of parables and metaphors, with a wide philosophical reach. But they were written by human beings for human beings. Full stop.

I have the intimate conviction that a world without religions would be a better place. Yet on the other hand, the worse totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were atheistic…

I personally consider religion as a perfectly private matter that should in no way interfere with our public life. Therefore, I am very much in favour of the French view on secularism as being a safeguard of what is often called “le vivre-ensemble”, the living together, especially in our modern and complex multicultural society. And when I use the word “complex” that is absolutely not negative, on the contrary, the more complex society get, the more it reflects the complexity of the human being.

My personal bible – which I do consider as “holy” only in the sense that it represents to me the foundation of a moral and just society – is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Kate - Portland, Oregon

Here are two quotes written in the late 1800's by the famous agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, who speaks my heart when he says:
"I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood...by preaching a creed that should be shrieked in a madhouse"...
"I have no confidence in any religion that can be demonstrated only to children."

Kent - Iowa (US)

This is certainly an interesting question. I could probably write an entire essay on this topic alone.

The most interesting thing to me is what would the world be like without religion. To try to answer this question, I'm forced to think of all the things that were done because of religion or "in the name of god" Here's a few things I could think of for a world with no history of religion:

No Iraq War
No 9/11
No WWII
No Holocaust
No United States of America
No Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology
No pyramids.
No expressions of frustration (i.e. god @#$% it)

To think about all the things we wouldn't have because of no religion is quite a task indeed but I absolutely love this question. Its one for the philosophers.

Stephen Clark, Leeds, UK.

Looking back at the 20th Century and perhaps the whole of known history, the three greatest causes of mass death have not been religeous but athiestic. I am refering to the Nazi regime, Satlin's communist purges and Mao's social experiments. Individually these athiestic regimes have killed many millions of people and in total are responsible for 10's of millions of deaths. Religeous wars do not even compare in scale.

Jade Rodgers,

Atheism is an irrational stance. It is a universal negative, there is no possible way that anyone could ever prove there is no God. To know there is no God you would have to know everything about the universe which would make you omnipotent which would make you God.

Rachel P

Elaine made the point that it doesn't matter whether or not we have religion if we all live with "good" morals. However, without the framework of religion, how does one know what is "right" and what is "wrong." Or, what is "good" or "bad." Religion lays down an absolute morality that dictates the way its practitioners feel about it. Left with a relative morality, or more problimatically, an absolute morality originating from an unknown place (or onesself), what then?

Where does this sense of "right" and "wrong" really come if not from "on high?"

Jennifer Bannister

Children should be brought up in the religin of their parents, to take that right away is atrocious just like it would be atrocious for an athiest children's to be brought up forcefully as any religion. I completely understand why athiests are anti religion, when I as a child I went to a once church who said the preachers were the only people in the world who can save people in the sunday school. It was a horrible experience and when I told my parents we stopped going. I don't confuse what happened to me as a child with the greatness and compassion. You atttack all religion, but athiests mainly attack Christianity because they grew up with it and fear it.

With religion, the matter is grace. the one reason many people disregard athiest is there lack of feeling of divine grace and if you have experienced divine grace it is unfathomable that other people haven't. and yes they do seem monsterous.

Athiests are deliberately offense often despite their supposed indifference. Its no wonder they are disregarded and attacked verbally. dThey attack the faith of billions of people as a lie. If that's not offensive I don't know what is.

Steve, USA

Though I consider myself an agnostic now, I was born Jewish, and I cannot tell you how many times when I was in grade school I was told by christian kids that I was going to hell when I died.

Steve, USA

The funniest thing when I think about religion, is how many of the religions have the childish approach of "I'm right and everyone and everyone else is wrong, and you're so wrong that in fact you will go to hell for eternity". If you think about it, Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the Same God. The christians think the others are going to hell, and within christianity, apparently catholics think all other christians go to hell. Why on Earth would God, if it exists, would make things so complicated? IF every religion thinks it's the right one, and everyone else is wrong, only one could be right, and many will be wrong. Couldn't God, if he's so powerful, clarify things a little? And another question for religious people, can God create a stone he cannot lift?

Ian, Seattle

Why believe in any religion or sect if they all preach acceptance? It just negates your views if you accept that others views are right too.

The believers and disbelievers know NOT what they do or do not believe. They have no concept and no frame of reference. Remember, that anyone who claims to know is a fool just for saying so. It is long held that which is sought ceases to exist once identified.

Jon Kiparsky, Oregon

There seems to be remarkable agreement among all parties on your program today. All agree that religion, Christianity in particular, is a problem if and only if one believes in it. This is progress.

Jade Rogers

Atheism is a form of religion to, it is based on the faith that there is no God. Atheists also try to convert people to their point of view, and are not tolerant of anyone who does not believe what they believe.

Wrongs will happen inside and outside of religion but I believe more happens outside of religion because those who don't believe in God have no standards to try to live up to. I do believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ and in the 7 day creation and I believe that there is proof of all of these events, I also believe in heaven and hell.

Tom Ford, US

Religion is the first Great Lie taught to children. It is a boot camp for training people to believe propaganda by government authorities, without question.

I have come to realize that Religion is child abuse in that it trains them to be subservient to Authority instead of standing up for their Unalienable Human Rights and Freedoms.

If you reduce religion to it's basic core, a belief in some supernatural being, everything else about religion is manmade, and available to non-believers; morals, justice, Golden Rule, etc. Religion is not needed!

Scott Millar, Portland

If god does exist he certainly isn't the god any religions worship. Because he/she clearly isn't listening to religious people. How could this god listen to Jews and Christians and Muslims repeatedly asking this god to help them battle the other religions. Muslim soldiers praying, Jewish soldiers praying, christian soldiers praying - all to defeat each other.

It is embarrassing we even have to discuss this and that such a high percentage of the world believes in something so fundamentally ludicrous as religion. This is the biggest con ever perpetuated on humanity. If any company or individual was making the claims that religions make they would be jailed or at the very least investigated.

Anne

The Human mind and heart desire meaning above and beyond the daily grind.
To truly believe in a God or Force that made the Universe Is to believe that we are more then dust on the planet's face.
That we can do better in our lives then act like jackels.

I have KNOWN families of children Carefully raised with no religious education at all.
So that they could decide when they were old enough, what to believe.
And EVERY one of those poor souls ended up spending years wandering from one predatory cult to another, desperately seeking SOMETHING that gave their life a larger meaning.
You have to give children SOMETHING, just so they have a starting place to rebel from.

And my only question to ask is this, Why do Muslims fear and hate women so much?
Why does EVERY organized religion begin it's work with subjugating women and trying to make them faceless soul-less slaves?

TeriAnne Kruse, Oregon, USA

Children have to be exposed to all types of religion to learn to not be afraid of different religions. It seems that many of the large conflicts in the world start with religious leaders that use ignorance and fear to promote their agendas. Without the ignorance and fear the extremists won't have the power they have now. Whether the religion is Judaism, Muslim, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. . . those that teach only one religion are guilty of promoting fear and ignorance.

My children's school taught comparative religions pointing out the good and bad of many religions including the good and bad of Catholicism, even though it was a Catholic school. My girls came out with an attitude of acceptance that was greater than most of their peers.

I haven't heard you mention the question of an afterlife. It seems that if you believe there is some sort of life after death, spiritual beliefs and religion take on more importance. If you believe this life is it, then really athiests have it right: live the way that makes you feel good about your life.

Chris Bartolini

Morality without God? Yes it's called the "law".

L in USA

The Golden Rule rules!
For me, as a child, learning the golden rule was a revelation that was desperately needed
to heal the wounds of the world: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..."

It was the most exciting single idea I had ever learned, and it actually gave me immense comfort, for
it seemed to be an answer to all the conflicts in the world.
It is so incredibly wise, so true, and yet too rare...

I believe that most all major religions have their version of the Golden Rule, but how much it
is truly practiced is questionable.

I went to a Quaker school from kindergarten through 3rd grade, and we were taught that all
other peoples and their religions are amazing and deserve respect, and that diversity is interesting
and creative. We were taught to have reverence for all peoples of the world.

Quakerism is very misunderstood. It is very different from being Amish. It is a religion that evolved
as spiritual solutions to the conflicts and misunderstandings caused by other religions.

What I don't get is: Since when is it a "tennent" of Christianity, especially, but any religeon really, to CONVERT? I read the Bible, and find nowhere in it the precept of Conversion, or the mission to "convert."
I see Informing, spreading the "good news," telling forth the gospel of the Christ, etc. but CONVERSION? Nope. Don't see it, and don't like it. I am an adult, and have, presumably, already made up my own mind, and I don't need ANYBODY involved in that.
As for children, I think the same thing, i.e. TEACH them about all, or most, or even just more than what you personally believe, and teach them HOW to make, and then to make, an informed decision, as it pertains to themselves.
Atheists would go a ong long way if they would quit saying the "God doesn't exist," and start saying "I -- I -- don't happen to believe in God. At least: not YOUR God."

Joey Givan, Colorado, USA

This is a huge topic, that is very relevant to today's globally shaped world. My only suggestion is that if one spends 2-3 days of doing conversations/programs about Burma, this topic needs about 2-3 weeks of well thought out guests, and scheduling that allows some kind of sensible plan or debate to be thought about.
Looking forward to something more coherent in the future!

Ayo in USA

Not take kids to school because they cant understand the theological concepts???!!!! How about not sending them to school because apart from them not even liking school, the concepts presented in school are not easy??? By the way, why not ban compulsory education because educated people have done the world wrong in so many ways, Enron officials, politicians etc…. Why not raise the children to decide when they want to and if they ever want to go to school???

Shelly, Oregon, USA

Frankly, I've noticed that all the Abrahamic religions charge a fee to get help, consult, or associate with them - and this cost is your soul. The more I associate with them the more I see them doing all the things they accuse of "satan" doing - everything has it's price. While I understand that there are those that need such controls in their lives, not all of us need a "great white father" to tell us how to live compassionate lives. In fact, I've noticed that their compassion is limited to their own religion. I am spiritual - but not religious - and Daoism is making more sense the older I get.

The Abrahamic faiths believe in a heaven - yet are the most fearful of death. They are terrified of death - yet it is supposed to be the ultimate goal. Children are raised in fear and terrified by their religous leaders when confronted by someone who doesn't follow their "rules".

I am dying of a rare cancer - yet am content with the years I have had and do not fear death. It is just another part of living. Notice, it is the non-abrahamic faiths that accept all others religious paths and wish they would give us the same freedom.

Steve in USA

I do really agree with the child abuse comment. The most religious people I know were seriously messed up with their indoctrination at church or by their parents, and they develop, serious, serious, serious issues, especially sexual issues. I don't think the caller literally meant they physically abuse their kids, but the indoctrination leads to mental problems which technically is psychological abuse. Though of course, religious or non religious people could be child abusers. A close friend of mine's mother was raised by a religious fundamentalist, the very judgmental type, and he would sexually abuse all of his daughters. The mother knew, but did nothing. The father is now dead, but the mother is still alive, and preaches to her grandkids about sinners, and immoral behaviours, meanwhile her religious fanatic husband would rape his daughters and she did nothing about it. If there is a hell, I really hope she and her dead husband go there, and I have told my fiend that I hope his grandmother goes to hell, and he says he hopes that too.
He of course is an anthiest, because he despised the hypocrisy he saw from religious people.

Melissa Dow, Seattle, USA

If a parent is not properly grounded in their own belief system (whatever it may be), that is, so secure that it is not necessary to discourage curiosity and questioning - then I could imagine that if a child comes to that parent with questions, the insecure parent might cling to religion (or whatever belief system) in order to fend off what they have not yet clarified for themselves.

Spirituality is an essential to humans. Religion exploits our need for spiritual awareness by imposing dogma. Religious dogma is a mental disease that is curable. Religious dogma results in hate, wars, treating women as second class citizens. Religions are abusive to its followers and others.

It is possible to be spiritual without religious dogma.

Steve Coral, USA

Do those that believe in God also believe in the toothfairy, santa claus, or any other fictional character written in a book?

Sunny, Singapore

I am a believer of god although I disagree with the definition of "god" that several religious people I have met believe in.
To address the topic in discussion, I believe that religions by themselves has never been a problem for mankind, but institutionalisation of religions have caused all the negative thinking that we have about other people or people of other faiths.

Ronald, Philippines,

I believe that it is important to recognize a God that created us, for us to realize how limited our lives are, and for us to live our limited lives in best possible way. And religion is necessary to facilitate it, because we need to realize that we share this world with other people.

As a child, religion and belief in God gives a foundation on how to make good decisions to what to do with their lives, which also includes their dreams and ambitions in the future.

In my personal experience, I believe that religion is a personal dialogue with God. As I was growing up, a lot of times I began to question faith and the God to some point however personal experiences had drawn me more to be believe in His existence. My parents brought me up with freedom of choice, and I choose to believe because I see God in my own personal experiences. I think that atheists would also choose to believe when it comes to the point that God touches their own personal lives.

TLH

Religions should be taught in schools as part of sociology and history without prejudice or preference toward any religion.

Parents should instill their values, including religious values, in their children through daily life and actions.

opinion from a seeker, not a believer.

I am too moral to belong to one religion!

Spirituality and morality are fundamentally human, and not religious dynamics. Religions are
written out belief systems about these dynamics.

Tom Ford, Oregon, USA

The three ways of lying are Deletions, Distortions, and Generalizations, and your Religionists are using all of them.

Ato Biney, Ghana

I can't imagine what would happen if there were no religion at all! Even there are numerous confessions of faith toward a divine authority who is seemingly watching and ready to mete out punishment there is rampant disregard for human life, nature, etc. It is important therefore to instill in children the sense of love for humanity. It is only way we can raise a responsible generation. Whether we bring the children in a religious way or not they grow to practice because religion is innate!

1) Bringing children up without religion in the home would effectively sound a death knell for all organized religions. The phrase 'until they are old enough to decide for themselves' is a veiled attempt to make total destruction of religion more palatable.

While it may be true that religion appears to have caused many wars, and countless acts of violence, I personally believe that these acts would occur anyway. Religion has been used as a proxy for other disputes, much more rooted in tribal, racial, or ethnic conflicts. People have always seen those that they feel connected to, be it by tribal ties or religious ties, or other bonds, are somehow 'More Human' than those they feel unconnected to.

In a purely practical sense, true isolation from religion is impossible. An understanding of all religions, in the very least an academic one, is absolutely necessary to understand most of history.

As a person who was raised in a Catholic house, and who went to both Catholic and public schools, I believe there is a clear and obvious difference between those educated by purely secular means, and those raised in a religious background. The people I went to Jesuit High School with were some of the most accepting and caring people I have ever met.

That aside, religion provides, to many people, a clear framework within which to set their moral values. Not everyone is capable of making the right moral decision simply because it is right. There are many many people in the world who still base their actions of lower level principles, such as punishment and reward, or law and order. See Kohlberg's stages of Moral Developement for more information.
Basically, I believe that people are naturally hateful, bigoted and violent. Religion has been attempting to change this for many years, but not even religious leadership is perfect. Many religious leaders fall prey to the same human weaknesses that we all have. Many others abuse the trust people have of religion for their own personal gain. That said, just because the execution is poorly carried out does not necessarily make the goals and beliefs wrong.

Whether or not God exists, and I do have not fully decided that for myself, religion has had an overall positive effect on human life. I certainly that athiest fundamentalists can be just as damaging as other religious zealots.

Bradley Zane, California, USA

I am amazed at the number of people who choose to emerge them self in superstition then find fault with others who find faith in either other superstitions or choose to ignore religion entirely.

As well the concept of religious schools alarms me. As an analogy, other then as a reference of conceptual development, I would find it astounding to discover a school teaching my child that the world is flat.

Worse, in the US religion has become a political movement, often attacking religious groups that remain secular. Witness the Government threats against a church in Los Angeles which preached against the war.

Sam Horwich, Brooklyn, USA

Religion is a far reaching phenomenon. While it is used for much evil, it helps people on a daily basis. The silent majority uses religion for comfort, and why shouldnt they?

If atheists have fervor it is because they are such a small minority against such an enormous repressive majority. This certainly is not evidence nor can it be inferred from this "fervor" that atheists are fundamentalists. It is like saying people trying to stop racism are fundamentalists, because they have fervor!!! How stupid.

Chris, Seattle, USA

Atheists may be their own form of religion and certainly there are those who are fanatic about it, however it is the only 'religion' who can back up its beliefs by centuries of hard earned scientific knowledge, other religions purely are basing their theories around the teachings of only a few ancient men with no concrete basis for their teachings.

Stephen Reynolds, Oregon, USA

To hold that children should be reared without religion, so that they can decide for themselves when they become old enough (and just when is that?) whether to adhere to a religion, and if so to which one, makes every bit as much sense as to hold that they should be raised without learning to speak, so that when they become old enough they can decide whether they want to speak, and if so in which language.

Mithril

Children should certainly be taught objectively about your religion. However, you should not sugar coat it with fair tales an lies in order to get them to accept it. for instance, telling them they should be nice in order to receive presents on Christmas from Satan Clause is a brain washing technique. it develops acceptable feelings by association.

Janice Schulwitz, Oregon, USA

As a Christian, making a decision to accept Jesus Christ is considered to be the most important decision of one's life. As such, as a Christian mother of four, it was very important for me to share the gift of Jesus Christ with my children, just as it was important to have them be educated (they attend public school). God does not force Himself upon anyone; it is up to each person to accept or reject Him.

It might be interesting for your atheist listeners to read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. Mr. Strobel was an award-winning reporter for the Chicago Tribune, educated at Yale, and an avowed atheist when he first investigated Jesus Christ. He asked tough questions and did systematic research on historical, scientific, and psychiatric evidence. He ended up finding compelling evidence for the claims of Christianity.

Your atheist speaker seems to put down religion as a whole due to the immoral acts of some individuals who claim that faith. The truth is that all of us are sinners and that is why Christ died for our sins. This does not mean we advocate or encourage sin, only that we have received grace.

Colin,

Atheism seems to have become yet another religion. That is the firm belief that there is no God is pretty much the same as believing there is, neither can be proved scientifically or otherwise. Surely would it not be better to believe that anything is possible and therefore open your mind to that fact. Richard Dawkins it seems to me treats science as his particular God and he, like most prominent scientists, trusts it to answer questions he has asked himself. It is true that most wars are rooted in religion and science provides the tools for them to cause massive death and destruction.

Steve, USA

The funniest thing when I think about religion, is how many of the religions have the childish approach of "I'm right and everyone and everyone else is wrong, and you're so wrong that in fact you will go to hell for eternity". If you think about it, Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the Same God. The christians think the others are going to hell, and within christianity, apparently catholics think all other christians go to hell. Why on Earth would God, if it exists, would make things so complicated? IF every religion thinks it's the right one, and everyone else is wrong, only one could be right, and many will be wrong. Couldn't God, if he's so powerful, clarify things a little? And another question for religious people, can God create a stone he cannot lift?

Jack, USA

Religion is dangerous. True believers in the major religions think this life is a dress rehearsal for the "Real Life" that is to follow. As a result there is no real incentive for them to overcome the injustices of this world, to improve thier own lives, or to protect the environment. As an athiest, I know that this life is all I get, one brief flash of sentience in an eternity of uncaring darkness, and I resent having to share my one chance with people who think it does not matter.

I attended Catholic high school and know the Bible better than most believers, just as I know Zeus's parentage, and the way Mithras killed the solar bull.
None of these fairy stories have made me a better person. Religion has outlived its usefulness and it is time for humanity to shake off these vestiges of its collective.

Adrian, Israel

Yes religion has caused some of humanities greatest pains. It has also caused some of humanities great achievements.

However I do believe there has to be more. Where did god come from? We are trained to believe all things come from something, if so again where did god come from..

Adil, Washington DC

There is nothing wrong with religion. The problems that one of your guess has said, is that Religion has been used a political tool to divide people. There is not difference between a Hindu or a Muslim in India. But political parties in India use Religion as a tool to gain power over others. I am a Muslim and I do believe my faith is true and right. But I also respect the other beliefs. The people in power use what ever is at there hands to control that power. They will use Gods name or anything other idea at hand. But over all religion has done the world more good then bad.

Susan, Oregon

It's not religion itself that promotes war and hatred. It's intolerance under the guise of obeying a higher power. I am loathe to describe myself as Christian given the intolerance and smugness that has become associated with the term due to the religious right in the US.

If we regard Jesus of Nazareth and Buddha as avatars, we should follow the example they set rather than the words in the Bible that were written by people who may or may not have had their own agendas.

Bart, Oregon USA

As a life long athiest, I find other athiests to be more trustworthy and honest than the religios. We will never advace as a species until we treat all religions for what they are, old myths.

Jocelyn Reed, OR, USA

How it can not be obvious to anyone who has read a history text book that religion leads to war, killing, oppression and hate is beyond me. It has been obvious to me since childhood that one of the world's biggest problems is formal religion. It is unfortunate that the world can't just live by most "profits" message, be good to one another. It seems when a major religion is formed around that concept in only leads to the opposite. The world is a strange place.

Melissa, Washington state, United States

Regarding the email comment from someone in the US saying that atheists disbelieve in God so as to escape moral responsibility, that's just idiotic. How does he explain, then, all of the so-called believers who commit terrible acts of immorality, sometimes even IN THE NAME OF GOD!? That's exactly the sort of arrogance and self-righteousness that Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and others take issue with when discussing religion. I am an atheist and am certainly NOT immoral, nor am I trying to escape his God's moral wrath. How dare ANYONE generalize me as immoral and irresponsible simply because I do not believe in God.

Nobody has yet answered the question that has been set forth in front of the panel. I would like a straight answer from someone. Also, some of the panelists were saying that the interpretation is the cause of the problem. I don't see how anyone can get off by not interpreting the answer. Unless there is a hugh image up in the sky of a particular God, there will always be interpretation as far as I am concerned.

Brodie in the US

Religion fuels hatred and war, didn't John Lennon say something or other on the subject 20 years ago? It was true then, and it's true now. Imagine that.

anon,

religion is a necessary fantasy that should be firmly kept in the realm of adults. In other words. It has done wonders for solace, for things we don't understand. However religion like Disneyland as foundation, for understanding oneself and the world, is dangerous and does not allow a child to make the distinction between what is real and what is fiction.

Jade Rogers

Religion promotes charity, created the salvation army, and DOES NOT encourage war, but instead encourages peace and love for your neighbor.

Nathan Starr, Portland, Oregon, USA

Religion isn't going anywhere any time soon, so it's useless to discuss whether we should all be atheists. That said, it is useful to discuss how religion can be helpful and what we can do to ensure that it is a positive influence.

I agree that children should not be raised believe a particular religion unquestioningly, but also should not be completely insulated from religion. Religion is a part of society and will be for the foreseeable future, so children should be exposed to a multitude of religions. They will then be able to make informed decisions for themselves and have a frame of reference for interacting with people who practice religions that they don't.

Jenny

Secularism is our greatest protection against intolerance and bigotry. It gives us all maximum religious freedom in our private lives by keeping religion out of the public sphere. Where religious people gain power, women suffer. That reason alone is enough to make me want people to give up religions.

Hi there, I've just spent the last hour deleting hundreds of messages from a really persistent spammer. Only you know who you are 'Hofner'... but to those who've written to say you're still having trouble posting on the blog, Hofner isn't helping. Stranger still is that the spam has no link for car insurance or Viagra, so it really is utterly pointless. That's a roundabout way of saying-- we're doing our best to sort out the spam/posting problems. In the meantime, feel free to email your comments and we'll post them manually from here.

HAVE BURMA'S PROTESTS FAILED?
To those of you who expressed solidarity with Burmese protestors last week-- do you now think the worst has transpired? Have the protests failed? Someone said this morning on the World Today, the BBC World Service breakfast programme, that the regime had succeeded in frightening another generation of Burmese into silence. Is that because the regime is simply too well-armed, and too intractable? Is it because the world has failed Burma again? Is it because individually and collectively, people have failed to act: to write to their representatives, to protest, to speak out?

Several of you have written to say that the world should boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's military and economic support to Burma's generals. Would you or have you written to your leaders to suggest just that?

Well, this weekend, rebel forces stormed a base in northern Darfur and killed African Union peacekeepers. Forty are still missing. Does this attack show that Africa can't bring peace to Darfur? Next year the UN and AU will jointly deploy the world's largest peacekeeping force - 26,000 troops - to Darfur. But, if the world has failed Burma... is it inevitable that it will fail Darfur too? What would you ask the 'elders' - Bishop Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Graca Michel and former UN Iraq envoy Lakhdar Brahimi- who have just arrived in Khartoum for talks?

Here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7021429.stm

IMAGINE NO RELIGION?
I doubt we'll get to this on-air today, but we all agree it's high time to put your concerns about religion to the rest of the world. There are more than 16 million results for 'atheism' on the internet search I just did. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, remains on the New York Times best-seller list (albeit now right at the bottom) nearly a year on... Would the world be better off without religion? Or are atheists just another kind of fundamentalist?

SPEAKING OF RELIGION....
F*** Islam is a site on Facebook (warning-- you can't access it unless you're already on Facebook). Here are its stated aim in its own words:

"The Quran contains many lies and threats. Islam is false, no god exists, and someone should say that loud and clear. Heaven and hell are fables, prayer is a waste of time, and angels and jinn are obviously mythology.

This is not a group against Muslims. [emphasis mine] They have it bad enough. If you doubt that go to Palestine. If you hate Muslims or are here to harrass them or promote your religion, go away. Muslims can be and usually are peaceful and respectful.

The best thing for the whole world is a rejection of all religions and a renewed discovery of the love for humanity and naturalism.
F*** Christianity and Judaism as well. These religions are just as false and have a variety of disadvantages."

F*** Islam has 924 members. A petition against the group and against Facebook has already had 72,702 people sign up.

Is it possible to criticize Islam without insulting Muslims? Or is the word F*** a blatant and inexcusable insult?

Bye for now,
Anu

We're having some technical problems again. Try to post here on the blog or send us an email. SCROLL DOWN TO THE END of the page to read the comments that are coming to us via email.

To today's show --- you guessed it, Burma. If you heard Monday's programme, we spoke to pro-democracy activist Taung Ko Tang, who may have been arrested after our conversation with him, though we haven't been able to confirm this. We're still trying to find out. Meanwhile, photos of a Japanese photographer shot dead in Rangoon yesterday by Burmese forces are dominating the papers here. China has urged 'restraint'; ASEAN has called the use of force 'repulsive'; the US has imposed more sanctions; and India and the UK have criticized the generals.

COMMENTS SENT TO THE WORLD HAVE YOUR SAY EMAIL ADDRESS:

China is the Elephant in the room as far as outside military intervention. If however India and Thailand and Malaysia moved in militarly it might work but I am sure they are all benefitting too much from the as is status quo of the situation to get involved. Also a successful Burma would be a threat economically to at least Thailand and Malaysia so its not in their interest. We lived as a family in Malaysia in the late 1950's and my Father always said that the Burmese were the nicest people he had met. What a terrible shame.
Nick Hardy.
_________

Hi dearest Anu and to all my good friends in WHYS! Hi to all WHYS good listeners! I love your accent Anu, it's beautiful! A military intervention in Burma??? No! No! No! Only the Burmese people must act to change the situation in their country, any change imposed from the outside will lead only to disasterous results that will tear Burma a part! The change from the inside is the only solution for the crisis in Burma! Please my friends in Burma, don't do like what your brothers in Iraq did, don't sit and wait for a miracle to come and take the military regime away! Have a will to change the situation in your own country! Nobody can solve your problems for you, you're the only ones who have the solution in your hands! Taung Ko Tang, my thoughts and prayers are with you my friend! With my love!
Lubna in Baghdad!

___________

It's pretty clear that the "Super Powers" won't go beyond their words because it is not their point of interest.There is much talk now because the anxiety is absent.I bet you,if Bush for example was interested in helping the Burmese,he would have done so.It less than no time to invade Iraq and the other interventions that were done without much debate.
Christian
_____________

WHYS,
Just out of curiosity. Bush has asked China to pressure the military ruler in Burma. When is somebody going to put pressure on the "military ruler" in Iraq to end the bloodshed there?
insurgent: 1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government;
Are not the protesters just a "peaceful insurgency"?
Oddly enough Insurgent comes from the Latin word meaning "to surge"
Hypocrisy has to be the worlds most devastating sin.
Lord of logic
www.logicandpolitics.blogspot.com
____________

Hi WHYS Team,

The military junta in Burma isn't new to repressing protests. During the cold war such practices used to be seen as an internal matter as countries like the USA tried to distance themselves from it considering it politically unrewarding. Its allies like China used the pretext of sovereignty.

As it seems in politics, principles are set aside in favour of interests. The most realistic in reaction to what is taking place was Russia when it said that Burma didn't pose a threat to any country. All the countries reluctant to impose vigorous sanctions on the military junta are worried about their interests.

The protesters stand defenceless. They have as arms just marches and the media reporting about them. The military junta has the deadly weapons to crush them. There is one thing that can turn the soldiers into supporters of democracy is by succeeding in converting them onto fervent Buddhists, ready to obey monks and not the military. As the army didn't spare even the monks by brutally repressing them, the civilians there are likely to be in the grip of military power. There is no force to overthrow it as the outside world is divided about what action to take.

The world leaders can stand against the military because of its undemocratic practises. By they won't stand in the way of each other's interests. The USA is free to do what it likes in Iraq. Other countries are free to support which regime they like.

A revert to civilian rule is unlikely. The military are reluctant to give power. A top general can accept a return to civilian rule provided he becomes the head of state at least for two terms as it was the case in Nigeria. In Pakistan Pervez Musharraf is fighting to remain in power at whatever cost. Even if he loses the next elections he will stay the head of the army. It's a dream only. The military junta in Burma should come to a compromise for a smooth transition to civilian rules. The Head of the army should share power with democratically elected parties to allow the next elections to be run for the formation of a civilian government. But it seems that generals used to the comfort of sweeping powers will find it difficult to return to their barracks. Blood for them is a routine. They won't mind spilling as much of it as a possible to get rid of hard opponents and through violent scenes they discourage any new challenge at least for a very long time. In Burma it took this spectacular uprising almost 19 years as the latest took place in 1988.

As history show, there are people who are unfortunate. Their ordeals become just a spectacle and they go down history as a parenthesis or a food for thoughts for movie makers, writers and journalist to depict this country to the outside world. As time passes, the protests fade and then the country falls in oblivion until new sparks of bloody protests grab the headlines.
Regards,
Abdelilah Boukili,
Marrakesh, Morocco
______________

Dear 'World Have Your Say'
Re: Burma
This is either a fight to the end or another 20 years of daily repression.
The Burmese people need to come out on mass and fight this to the end - or they will be ruthlessly bound for another two generations.
Unfortunately, the world has chosen to watch rather than act. It is in the hands now of the Burmese people alone.
Cheers
Dr Howard Scott
New Zealand
___________

I am an Australian living in Asia, Singapore to be precise with mild political views & mild religious views, however feel I need to make comment on what is currently taking place in Burma.
I have been following the recent events and can't believe how little or late the world leaders of today have done to make protest or take action against this brutal dictatorship.
Is there not enough oil in the country, or have not enough people been killed, or have not enough peoples been imprisoned , have there not been enough crimes against humanity ?
What sort of country is this when the army/state police shoot and kill unarmed monks or other peaceful protesters. How many hundreds or thousand (hopefully not) of people have to die.
What does it take for the world to stand up and take action ? What will it take for China to stand up given they are meant to be an up and coming world super power, as well as the juntas closest allies officially. Does ASEAN not have the will or the strength to take action. Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia spend god knows how much on military equipment annually and have enough armed forces to put in place peace keeping force but will stand by and do nothing. Will it be left up to the Americans to take action again on behalf of the world or will Australia act as there proxy in the Asia Pac region, because no other nation or nations have the guts or respect for human liberties.
Please will the world stand up and take notice and action before it is too late, this is not an internal issue this is a Global issue.
Nicholas Burnham
____________

All are appalled by the sight of peaceful monks and lay people being killed and wounded by soldiers in Burma.
Although China claims that it doesn't want to interfere in the internal affairs of neighbours, it is quite clear that China has been the main lifeline of the illegitimate military regime in Burma/Myanmar for many years. In the past the Communist Government of China didn't seem have any problem interfering in the "internal affairs" of Tibet, Vietnam and other neighbours and China still continues to be one of the main backers of the far away government of Sudan which is implicated in the killing of it's own citizens in Darfur. It also continues to claim large parts of NE India which border Burma/Myanmar.
The military regime in Burma/Myanmar is well armed - mainly by the China. It is clear that the Burmese army and arms are primarily used to control its own citizens. These Chinese arms are used not to protect the citizens of Burma, but to kill them.
Perhaps all freedom loving countries and people should boycott the Olympic Games in Beijing next year, because we would of course hate to interfere with China's "internal affairs"?
Chris Fynn
Thimphu, Bhutan
_____________

Hi, World Have Your Say Team,
The Chinese can't say the trouble in Burma is an internal matter when it is the Chinese themselves who sold the weapons of repression to the Generals.
The Chinese do not have the moral stature to hold the Beijing Olympics. It's time everyone outside of Burma raised their voices against the Chinese leadership's lack of action and threaten to boycott the Olympics unless the Chinese move NOW to restrain the Burmese Generals.
All the Best,
Donnamarie Leemann
Switzerland
__________

for bad democracies like burma, i think the only thing that can change the situation is for the masses to get true civic education at amust and free.burmese should understand that human rights are for every human beings, monks or gangsters.
david lulasa
(kon tiki,silentPower)
uthiru,kenya.
_____________

I am so sorry that I can not do more than joining others to talk about the Burma.
I live in Liberia on the west coast of Africa andI try to tell everyone That I can talk to about what is going on, and a lot of people in my community are listening, and are showing concern.
If we should leave Burma and stop talking, it will be a great defeat to people fighting for their freedom all over the world.
Please let us continue to dedicate some more time to those innocent people over there.
The BBC has been doing a great Job.
Alan was talked about almost everyday on the BBC until we all saw him free.
Uzondu Esionye
Porch Internet Cafe
Monrovia, Liberia
_______________

They should protest with the army frozen! If it is non violent and people are being killed, more and more who are willing to die should come forward(See Gandhi by Richard Attenborough: We will protest by non violent satyagraha but are willing to die).
R. ashok Kumar, B.E.,M.E(Power), Mumbai, India
________________

1) Is it time for military intervention?
hmmmm, I don't think that would solve the problem, but on the countrary create a bigger problem

2) Can a military campaign work? Look at Iraq.
I am very sceptical

3) Why isn't India, the world's biggest democracy and Burma's giant neighbor, speaking out more? Do Indians care about what's happening?
I heard on the French radio that India was signing a huge deal with the Burmese regime to sell them helicopters...
Money makes the world go round!
And does a constitution and free elections turn a country into a democracy??? I have my doubts!

4) If international leaders are willing to condemn the regime, why aren't they backing up their words with actions?
Because they don't care, because they don't want trouble with China, because democracy means a better and more honnest share of the riches of Burma which amounts to less advantages for them, because at the end of the day they are only interested in their own position and their own possessions

5) The UN special envoy is headed to Burma, will his visit make any difference?
NO

6) Or maybe what's happening in Burma is nobody's business? Military action isn't practical... sanctions don't work, so it's best to maintain relations, even if it's with a military dictatorship....
look at Pakistan?
This is what all the world leaders secretly think and it's a shame The world should immediately recognize the government in exile as the only legimate government of Burma, call back their embassadors from Burma, isolate that regime and require that Ang Sang Su Kee would immediately recover her full freedom
Isabelle Grynberg
Antwerpen, Belgium
_____________

Mass boycott of the Chinese 2008 Olympics can resolve both Burma and Darfur. War is messy and India is a Westminister paper democracy.
Chester Mapala,
Lusaka, Zambia.
_____________

Good day,
I would just like to say that as often as Israelis make racist declarations against Muslims and Arabs, nobody in the West bats an eye. In the light of that it's rather amusing to see the shrill and bigoted reaction to Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. The people shouting him down are little better than he himself.
Cheers,
-Jameel Fosryth Rahman
York, PA, USA
_____________

There is no comparison to Myanmar and Iraq... The brave people of Myanmar are openly rejecting the oppressive regime that hold them hostage. A large number of Iraqi's have rejected the US lead coalition from the start, while the residents of Myanmar are pleading for immediate attention and assistance. The UN needs to push it's members to organize a multi-nation army to help prevent the death of innocents.

Ken in Cleveland
______________

Intervene into what? Another civil war? What is happening in Burma right now is just that, a civil war. Hasn't Iraq taught anyone yet it's a bad idea to get involved in another nation's internal conflict?

I understand the feeling of helplessness at witnessing the events now unfolding, but, as harsh as this might sound, there is very little the world community can do.

The best we can do, from my perspective, is to get all sides to sit down and talk. Going in shooting isn't the answer here, who knows the chaos it might cause.
Mary in Oregon
___________

I believe sanctions have been ineffective in most cases where they have been used. As far as buying products from Burma, I would like to become more aware of who is conducting business that benefits the Burmese government so I can make the personal choice to boycott those products.

Ultimately, the ball is in the court of the Chinese government. I believe that there should be more international pressure on China to step in. That is unlikely based on history. China armed the Khmer Rouge in the 1970's despite the massacre of a large percentage of the Cambodian population.

Burma is the next "Killing Field." Will the world exercise the same apathy?

Thank You,
Jon Davis
_________

Why has Bush suddenly spoken out now? To divert attention from Iraq, even if only for a 1 - 2 week news cycle!
Glenn Brown
Sisters, Oregon
_______

I am continually surprised that commentators are even suggesting that China somehow become involved in the Burma situation. Bear in mind that this is the same ruling regime that sent tanks and troops against its own people less than a generation ago. So they are not known for supporting democracy (protests). Apart from that they have a vested interest in keeping the Burmese generals in power having a great deal invested in Burma and all agreements signed with this regime and it would set a dangerous precedent in the area and give hope to separatist elements in China itself not to mention Tibet. As the BBC noted, it also impacts upon Russia. As for India, they have no interest what so ever to upsetting the region and a general apathy towards involvement in other states internal politics.
Andrew
Australia
_____________

I think the most effective intervention in the situation in Burma is for everyone all over the world who cares about the Burmese people to immediately and completely boycott ALL CHINESE MADE PRODUCTS unless and until it stops protecting the military regime.
Angela Zehava
Portland, Oregon
___________
I think that UN should send their forces now. Less talking more action is needed. Why do we talk for days about this problem when innocent people die???? I have the feeling that if there would be oil fields down there then the US would already be there. Is like in Darfur, we have a genocide going on for years and the world does not do anything to stop it.
Anna Wachnicka
_____________

Except for weak sanctions, Why isn't the United States, the "protector of freedom," intervening in the Burmese atrocities? Simple: US oil and gas companies have deals with the military strongmen.
There are good bad guys and bad bad guys. The difference seens to be measured in gallons and barrels.
If our oil interests were at stake, troops would be gathering now.
--a.j.
Brooklyn, New York
_______________

Is the Western press, especially the BBC, hypocritical? Comparatively, there was little, or NO strong outcry about the massacre of innocent Africans in Sharpville, 1960; Soweto in 1976, and of course, the brutal murder of Steve Biko, by the South African Apartheid regime. Paraphrasing Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The West, thy name is hypocrisy!"

British governments, either Labour, or Conservative, were silent supporters of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and Ian Smith's oppressive rule in Rhodesia for decades.

M.S.Kamara
Jackson, Tennessee, U.S.A.
___________

I want the people of Burma to continue their protest and see that the end, also what they want is given to them. I will want them to look at the Sierra Leone situation where people protested and matched to the former and Late Rebel leader Foday Sackor' which resulted to his arrest arrest. Sometimes is good for us to take our destiny in to our own hands. Am just appealing to the International Committee not to wait until they start cutting peoples hands or killing them before the intervane.

Maej
From Allen, Texas
_____________

The US supplies the majority of the fighting force for the UN and we are stretched thin enough. So to those who advocate an armed UN force go into Burma, where do they think that force will come from? Its a ridiculous idea.
Nikkoli (nickel eye)
Porland OR
_____________

Leave alone Burmese people to solve their problem, it is their struggle. We got rid off Saddam and as a result we killed over a million people. Burma is not like Ruwanda as one of your callers put it. There is a government that rules the country so let the Burmese people get rid of them. But not B52 as we did in Iraq.
Amiir
_________

Dear 'World Have Your Say'

Re: Burma

This is either a fight to the end or another 20 years of daily repression.

The Burmese people must come out on mass and fight this to the end - or they will be ruthlessly bound for another two generations.

Unfortunately, the world has chosen to watch rather than act. It is in the hands now of the Burmese people alone. Let them act.
Cheers
Dr Howard Scott
New Zealand
___________

i was opposed to united states intervention in iraq to secure oil resources
i would support united nations intervention in myanmar to secure human rights
Jesse Smith
____________

I think that Irish caller is absolutely right about the world focusing on Israel, and ignoring other, much more horrific events. Let's not forget that the UN Human Rights Commission actually decided to single out Israel for special scrutiny, basically meaning they were planning on ignoring everything else, with only Canada objecting. Is Israel an angel? Of course not, but when you focus solely on Israel, ignore everything else, ignore much worse things, it really comes down to antisemitism, plain and simple. I've actually had acquaintances tell me to stop bringing up things like Darfur or Sri Lanka or Chechnya, because it distracted them from ranting about Israel.
Steve
USA
_________

Another reason why the UN focuses so much effort on Israel, and not other nations, such as Burma, is the composition. Let's face it, Muslim countries, the vast majority (excluding perhaps Turkey), hate and despise Israel. There are 57 Muslim majority member nations at the UN, and only one Jewish majority nation on earth. I have a feeling if you have that many voting members in the UN, you can influence the agenda of the UN. Talking about other issues on earth would distract from criticizing absolutely everything Israel does.
Steve
USA
________

I haven't listened in weeks and now we can't have a story about Burma without interjecting palestine. I give up.
terry
Boston MA
_________

The world can wring its hands in sympathy with the Burmese people but the reality is that no one is going to intervene militarily on their behalf. The U.N. is not going to declare war on the regime, the U.S. is not going to invade, sanctions will take decades and in two months this story will be forgotten by the world press. The only hope is for officers within the regime to stage a coup on behalf of the civilian population.
John D. Anthony
Salem, Oregon
_____________

Hello WHYS,

I just heard the question put to a Swedish reporter, "Does it take a genocide?" This was asked in order to ascertain what it might require to cause action in Burma. The line of the question is within the idea that Israel receives far too much attention, etc. As this Swedish reporter points out, Sweden reports often on the Palestinian cause and famously in support of the Palestinians at every turn, while seeming to vilify Israel at the same time. Let us recall that in WW2, Sweden was infamously neutral, and today remains somewhat hostile to Jews, while opening its doors wide to thousands of Islamic refugees. Is there perhaps a problem with the source of information?

Burma is surrounded by powerful local nations who themselves we now learn haven't the care to know what is going on in Burma for 20 years. Israel is a strategically located democracy and is at the heart of a much older problem and is the result of a continued attempt at national and religious genocide of a people over two thousand years, Starting with Rome, continued through Christianity and culminating in WW2. THAT is why Israel is so often in the news!

I find some of the commentator's verging on outright anti-Jewish hate talk.
Mark LaRue

Good morning everyone! Not a bad day to be talking to Britain's foreign secretary. Gordon Brown has just announced a tough new stand against Zimbabwe's president; Condoleeza Rice is meeting Israeli and Palestinian leaders a day after Israel declared Gaza a 'hostile entity'; monks in Burma continue their protests against military leaders; and Pakistan has announced new presidential elections.

David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary and avid blogger, has agreed to spend the hour taking your questions today, from 1800 to 1900 BST.

I'm Anu Anand and I'll be presenting tonight's show.

David Miliband is particularly passionate about climate change and Turkey joining the EU. But it's your turn to question him on Britain's policies around the world-- the so-called 'war on terror', trade, the Middle East, poverty, debt, global warming.

We've already had more than 400 messages to the BBC's Persian service! Many people there are worried about the prospect of war against Iran. Post below if you want to participate too.

Arazgol from Karaj, Iran writes:

Mr. Miliband, An old unanswered question: why British foreign policy in the middle east is following a double standard pattern? Why for example Israel is developing nuclear program, and keeps attacking and occupying its neighbor's land but the UK is not taking any serious action in this regard? Just letting you know that I am against Iranian dictator regime but it is a different story and I do not want Americans or British to mess up the area for their selfish reasons without really worrying about people or democracy...

Lubna in Baghdad has responded to the Daily Email:

"I have a question for Mr.Miliband, does he support a quick British withdrawal from Southern Iraq?! I'm curious to know his stands on that issue! As for me I do believe strongly that the US and the UK forces must stay in my country until they clean up the mess they took part in creating! But I do wanna know what Mr.Miliban thinks about this?!"

"BRAINS"
At 42, David Miliband is Britain's second youngest foreign secretary (David Owen, who served from 1977 to 1979 was 39). He's the son of Polish Jewish immigrants who fled the Holocaust. His younger brother, Ed, an economist, is also a member of Parliament. He was nicknamed 'Brains' for his role in helping shape the Labour party manifesto ahead of the 1997 landslide victory.

You can read David Miliband's main priorities at the Foreign Office website here. The top three are:

1. making the world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; 2. reducing the harm to the UK from international crime, including drug trafficking, people smuggling and money laundering; 3. preventing and resolving conflict through a strong international system.

As I write this, there are 202 comments below and counting..... Keep them coming! I'm sure David Miliband is looking forward to tonight's programme. I know I am! Speak to you soon. Anu

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu has called Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe 'the worst kind of racist dictator', and likened him to the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. He said Britain's prime minister Gordon Brown should lead a coalition of countries in mounting stricter international sanctions against Zimbabwe and said the time for 'African solutions' is over. Here's the storyin full. Until now, criticism of Robert Mugabe from outside Zimbabwe has come largely from white, western leaders. Dr. Sentamu himself fled Idi Amin's Uganda. Is he right about Robert Mugabe?

BREAK UP BELGIUM?

"There's no Belgian language. There's no Belgian nation. There's no Belgian anything," according to Filip Dewinter of the extreme Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang.

Not everyone in Belgium supports his party, but recent polls suggest there is alot of support for an independent Flanders, the larger, wealthier Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Belgium has just over 10 million people, and 11 local parties in parliament. There is no single national politician or national identity between Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia. The Economist magazine recently said it's time to abolish Belgium, calling it "a freak of nature". What other countries would you break up? Is it time to say 'au revoir' Canada? Dis-unite the United Kingdom? Since Czechoslovakia managed a "velvet divorce," why not end the vows of Spain's Catalans, Basques, Galicians and Castilians?

Here's the story in full.

COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED TODAY (not posted on the usual comments area today due to technical problems):

BELGIUM MAN!
Zaphod Beeblebrox used it as a dirty word in times of frustration. Some people just can't handle pluralism. Whether in life or philosophy, and a homogenous nation seems the only way.
Dr Alan Marshall
_______

Blog's not working today

I don't know what effect the EU's ruling will have on Microsoft. What I do know is that no try falls with one swing of the axe, and no dam breaks until the last drop can no longer be held back.

Microsoft is reeling internally. Vista is a giant flop. I know of no professionals who recommend installing it. Dell bought an extra 100,000 copies of XP from Microsoft to maintain the availability to offer it.

Throw in with it that free versions of operating systems such as Ubuntu and Linspire are becoming very user friendly. More companies are making software and hardware compatible for them. Also since Mac has switched to an Intel processor, writing for the new Mac machines is not relatively as different as developing for the Windows O/S.


It would be a great day when MS looses its grip of dominance on the information industry. The questions is what is the EU going to do with the money. I recommend that they use it to buy a few hundred thousands units without Microsoft on them. Instead, they can install one of the leading free flavors of Linux. Then they can fill classrooms wit the new units and break the circle of comfort the windows has attained. Maybe one can go on to develop a drafting program to rival AutoCAD, and I can get rid of my windows permanently.

Lord of logic
www.logicandpolitics.blogspot.com
____________________

What will separation of Belgium accomplish? What is the real motivation for each group? Joe, Cleveland, USA

"In the world to come, they will not ask me 'why were you not Moses?' They will ask me, 'why were you not Zusya?'" -Zusya of Hanipoli

________________

Hello,

Listening to your guests what the Wallonians and the Flemish peoples have in common is that they both speak English, so why doesn't Belgium adopt English as its official language and then just get on with life!

Groetjes,

Paul

Barcelona
_________

Ros,

I am sorry, but once again I have had to turn off whys -- the last time I did this was back when you had all the young people on from India for a week, and you could not keep them from all shouting at once. It was impossible to actually track what they were saying because of the overlapping sound and the anxiety-producing tone. I think you overestimate your listeners stomach for this kind of aural assault. It's too much like am-talk radio, with no one listening and everyone shouting. Your moderator today is making an attempt to get people to listen to each other, but if they won't and won't stop shouting hysterically, she should just say "Thank you for your input" and go to another caller. It was clear from today's shouter that he was going to interpret everything anyone said as patronizing -- we were never going to get beyond that. And he wasn't going to let anyone finish a sentence. Stop beating a dead horse and move on. You have a whole world full of listeners and contributors. Listen to Neal Conan to see how it's done. Your show is new, very ambitious, and exciting. But too often it's an auditory and emotional train wreck. The whole nature of radio is that your listeners are usually multi-tasking, even if the only other task is driving. I couldn't listen to this program about Mugabe, or the ones about the roles of women in India, and not worry about driving off the road -- it felt like no one was in control of the radio, so I had to keep shouting at it --"Shut up! Let him finish! Get a grip! Take it down a notch! Put a sock in it!" Not good.

Anyway, I hope you take this in the right spirit -- am rooting for your program to succeed. It's a much-needed window on the world -- here in Oregon we feel a little less removed from reality when we tune in. But there need to be some grown-ups in charge at the party.

Thanks for your good work.

Nancy Winbigler
Lake Oswego, Oregon
____________

I think that the 3 Western states of the U.S.A. should break away from the union. It is a diverse and progressive people and the Federal Government drags it backwards.

JC in Santa Cruz
____________

It's obviously that Zimbabwe is strongly against the West, so the West should leave them alone. The whole of Africa is backing Zimbabwe so leave them be. No sanctions no nothing!

Paul Mitchell, Jamaica

_______

If Mr Mutonga is really Assistant Minister of Information it's only too easy to understand how the malign incompetence of ZANU-PF is destroying his country. Perhaps you could ask Tererai to give him a few useful hints on how to perform his Ministerial functions.

Owen Beith
___________

Yet again African leaders blame everyone but themselves for the demise of their country(s) - the people of Sierra Leone recognised that they had been better off under colonial rule and asked the British to remain when they went there as part of a UN mission to rescue the country from their dictatorial rulers. Mugabe is the worst kind of blinkered self serving corrupt greedy myopic thief who has no interest in the people of Zimbabwe but only in lining his & his own henchmen's pockets - look at the recent BBC reporter's visit to Harare and all the people in poverty and their 'rulers' large estates. Are 4 million Zimababwians in south Africa wrong? NO & sadly it seems M'Beki would appear to be going down the same route - let them eat cake appears to be replaced with let them eat beetroot!

Yet again an excellent programme with a worthwhile debate.

Andy Robinson
____________

That guy defending Mugabe really loves playing the victim card, to preserve the power of a dictator, everything is europe's fault. 400 years in the future, and dictators like Mugabe are still in power, will it still be the west's fault? At one point will the african leaders look at themselves and see the problem? These leaders want power to badly they will allow their people to suffer for their megalomania.

steve

________

Hello:

As usual this program (WHYS) is at the leading edge of British imperialistic designs.

After the horror which has befallen Iraq, thanks to the Anglo-American axis' illegal invasion, you have the temerity to bring up invasions of Darfur and Zimbabwe. Do you have no shame? Not that I do not feel for the suffering peoples in these regions, but the whole notion of "regime change" has the effect of dictators clamping down on the local folks.

Change in regimes is, first and foremost, the province of the local people. Furthermore, regional neighbours should be brought into political exchanges rather than some distant former colonial powers wanting to use force.

Of course, the archbishop's comments are welcome, because free-speech is important to be heard.

Wasn't there a Zimbabwean Catholic Archibishop, who was quite critical of the Zimbabwean regime, found out to be carrying on with the women folk of his parish, also called sexual trysts? So much for these people of the cloth!

Have a nice day.

W.N.

________

Hello World Have Your Say,

I heard you say last week that you would be broadcasting from Phoenix in the next couple of months or so. I would be interested in hearing a show about the water crisis that Pheonix is causing downstream on the Colorado as well as their own impending crisis. I recently read a book by Fred Pearce called When the Rivers Run Dry in which he predicts that Phoenix will be the first city in the US to have their plumbing system collapse due to the water shortage that the city itself has helped cause. If you can locate some water experts who are educated on this area, I think you would have a very interesting subject there. I take an interest because we in southern Idaho will be right behind them in having our reservoirs and aquifers dry up as our cities continue to grow. But, as I found from this fascinating book, water shortage is a global crisis that does not get nearly enough coverage.

Sincerely,

Alison
Regular WHYS listener
Twin Falls, ID
________

Hello WHYS,
I come from California, considered one of the fastest growing "green" regions in States and the world. But what is Britian's "global warming" policy? If it takes an active role to curb global warming, how is it attempting to curb the human impact we are having on the earth and would ever try to resurge the Kyoto Treaty?

What does he think Turkey needs to achieve inorder to be granted membership into the EU? What cultural differences that keep Turkey from entering the EU? What would he define as Europe? Could he name what he thinks to be the boundries?

Thanks,
Eric, San Francisco
____________

Ok, some nations were contrivances by former colonial powers, take Iraq for example or Yugoslavia, but where does it end. Does every little region and tribe feel that a rush of patriotic independence should ultimately lead to it creating its own state? Such little 'nations' cannot survive on their own and become just as artificial as the conglomerate it was once a part of. Montenegro is learning what it is like to go its own way from Serbia, but that spilt is showing up its economic shortcomings and how they are solving such a crisis has not been well accepted by the people who end up short-changed by the experience. Perhaps some regions should break up, but then again you have the problem where once free to pursue their national desires still quibble about what lands they have been left with and rekindle old hostilities about who took what and did what to whom.

Andrew
Australia
___________

Robert Mugabe is treated so well by African leaders as these other supposedly democratic and not so democratic African leaders either have vested interests in Zimbabwe and gain from his continued presence or they feel that if they intervene on behalf of Zimbabweans then that leaves the door open for them to be ousted in similar circumstances. It would set a dangerous precedent for the continent to have a corrupt and ruthless dictator removed from power. No one wants to rock the boat. Add to that it tends to underscore the fact that this was a totally African problem and the former colonial masters cannot be blamed which has been a great excuse (as Mugabe himself constantly uses) to divert attention from the real cause of a nation's problems. This club of African leaders is all about self-preservation.

Andrew
Australia
_________

Hi dearest Anu and to all my good friends in WHYS! Hi to all WHYS good listeners! I'm totally against the idea of the sanctions in general! We in Iraq have experienced very harsh sanctions for 13 years from 1990 till 2003, those sanctions had hurt only the Iraqi people and hadn't affect Saddam's regime much! The change must come from the inside of Zimbabwe,not from the outside! The people of Zimbabwe must push towards the change! With my love! Lubna in Baghdad!
_________

There is Belgian beer, albeit pretty bad stuff.

Rob Briggs
School Bus Driver Extraordinaire

_________

Mugabe is just a bad person. He started off by killing thousands of fellow blacks in Matebeleland in the 1980s before going after white people.

Chester Mapala,
Lusaka, Zambia
___________

Britain stills behaves as though it is still a global power. The money spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the nuclear submarines could be better spent on improving public services in the UK.

Chester Mapala,
Lusaka, Zambia
_________

Belgium is a raw deal for the more prosperous Flemish people who subsidise the French-speaking Walloons in the same way the Southeast of England bankrolls the whole UK economy.

Chester Mapala,
Lusaka, Zambia

_________

As a bilingual Belgian, I completely disagree with the analysis of the Economist.
The crisis we are going through here is really made up and fomented by politicians and the media. The regular citizens, in their large majority, do not wish the country to be parted. They do not care. All they want is to make a decent living, to have some hope for the future and to be able to enjoy life, to buy a house, a car, to sent the kids to proper schools, to go on holiday every once in a while... like everywhere.
Personally, I think it would be suicidal to separate our tiny country! We are so small, so insignificant that it does make no sense to become even smaller and more insignificant.
Moreover, times do change. For about 130 years, Wallonia was the rich part of the country, since 40 - 45 years, Flanders is the wealthy and dynamic region, but it will change again in 10, 20 or 30 years.
On top of it, how do we settle the problem of our capital, Brussels?
It is located in Flanders but 85% of its inhabitants are francophone.
And what kind of independent republic will we get here in Flanders? A fascist one or an far-right one?
And why should I, as an Antwerpener, have to live with people from Ghent or Bruges? They have another mentality and a weird accent when they speak! Why not go back to the Middle-Ages and create independant city-States???
Please BBC, be careful, you do not know how much harm the media inflict by relaying those stupid nationalistic ideas in the age of globalisation. They will only lead to quarrels, dissension, if not war. There are already enough of them around the world.

Isabelle Grynberg,
Antwerp, Belgium
_______

Given his ethnic origins it is not surprising that Sarkozy proposes war against Iran. It won't be long before he urges NATO to invade the West bank and Gaza in order to wipe out all Palestinians.

[Prof] Joseph H Hulse

AND HERE'S THE TEXTS!

Its true mugabe is the worst dictator & the SADC leaders hav let the Zimbabweans down

Sanctions are a non-starter. To think that Mugabe is a dictator only exposes the Ugandan Bishop s ignorance! Ouma Samuel, UGANDA

The African Chairman J.A.Kuffour has been strangely Silent over the Zimbambwean's issue. Why? - Ana.

Mugabe & his men had started a jonny 4 independence demo Zimbabwe should not relent in dealing with anyone or group of people who obstruct democracy. Africa should follow suit - Majid

Sanctions are like open-heart surgery: u have to freeze the patient & stop the heart for the operation to succeed. Sanctions can drain people but can also cause freedom. Mark

The problem in Zimbabwe is not Mugabe but British imperialism & the western sponsored illegal sanctions. If the sanctions are lifted the problems in Zimbabwe w

It's very optimistic to see a good educated person defend such a failed government. Mr Matonga you have to think before you say. Ibrahim from libya.

SADC HAS MANAGED TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF ZIMBABWES PROBLEMS, UK, US, AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENTS PROTECTING THEIR NATIONALS. SIR BOB WAS THE ANGEL 20YRS AGO, AND NOW? - FRED,LUSAKA

I think because I am african i should suport mugabe, he should be criticised he has ruined the country. I was with a friend last week in South Africa and he was buying detergent to take back home. Sanctions will not help. Mugabe should go that's the solution. - Carol,journalist kenya

British Raj. Some countries may have been in a better state under the Brits, but only the masters benefitted, not local people. Also, countries such as India have done extremely well after Independance. The rest of us will get there in time. - Ivy, kenya

I really wonder if Mutonga knows how ridiculous he sounds. How can you defend a system that's killing its own people.

With all the pressure the west has been piling, African leaders look away. When disaster strikes we blame the west for dragging its feet on Zimbabwe. Shame on the AU From Isaac in Bo , Sierra Leone

My name is Uswege Mwaipyana from Tanzania, I think Mugabe is a mere racist and responsible for the hell Zimbabwe is going through.

Why doesn't Bishop Sentamu advocate for British assistance to poor Zimbabweans bypassing the government as they do to Palestine. I hope it is not racism.

I take exception to any attack on Zimbabwe that is so blind to know that land is central to any economic malaise on the country. P. CHINTHULI MALAWI

Zimbabwe will continue in its present hell because Mugabe, like all dictators, and out of self preservation must hang on to power until, like late Abacha of Nigeria, is struck off the scene by the all merciful God. Johnson, Lagos

Mugabe and power are till death do us apart - no solution in sight - dictators are removed by external force not by external words

I realy doubt an african intellectual capacity 2 handle complex issues is it genes or social - Mali in Zambia

PLEASE LEAVE PRESIDENT MOGABE ALONE. FROM MANSOUR OF MONROVIA.

He needs to stand down and stand trial. Things grow worse from day to day and the cities continue to rot and services are fast collapsing. People say he's trying to emulate the planned starvation brought about in parts of the world to do away with his detractors. The farms have been handed to cronies who are known as weekend farmers and production is way down on necessary levels. Mr. Matonga is hardly the most eminent of fair minded people as every Zimbabwean is well aware of. It is incredible that someone can defend such a cruel and hard hearted dictator who has destroyed this amazing land. It is incredible that Matonga has the audacity to be such a buffoon on air on a british radio station. Atilla with none from a darkened Harare. He needs to stand down and stand trial. Things grow worse from day to day and the cities continue to rot and services are fast collapsing. People say he's trying to emulate the planned starvation brought about in parts of the world to do away with his detractors. The farms have been handed to cronies who He needs to stand down and stand trial. Things grow worse from day to day and the cities continue to rot and services are fast collapsing. People say he's trying to emulate the planned starvation brought about in parts of the world to do away with his detractors. The farms have been handed to cronies who are known as weekend farmers and production is way down on necessary levels. Mr. Matonga is hardly the most eminent of fair minded people as every Zimbab

BELGIUM splits in2 2 Countries? Which bit leaves the EU? BRUSSELS? One Nation EUROPA: Ein Reich; ein Volk; ein F~hrer! It didn t stop Hitler. Worse 2 come. Josh

I d like to ask Mr. Mutamba why so many people have fled Zimbabwe? adam in portland,or,usa

How do we put sanctions on Zimbabwe without harming the poor people of that country? Adam in portland,or, usa

Dutch Roman Catholic Bishop Martinus 'Tiny' Muskens of Breda says Christians should address God as Allah to promote unity with Muslims. "Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?” Bishop Muskens said in an interview on Monday. “God doesn’t care what we call him.” He points out that in Arabic, the word for God is 'Allah' and that Arabic-speaking Christians already use the word.

What do you think about his suggestion? Are we all Allah's children?

"Allah isn't the God worshipped by Christians or Jews. This is a distinction that every Muslim understands - Why can't a Catholic Bishop get it? It will foster understanding, all right - the understanding that the Church is an empty shell, willing to capitulate to the world."

And Isabel in Antwerp has just emailed:

"Can't you please please for once dedicate a show to the free thinkers, the non believers, the atheists...??????????
Do we really have to listen nearly daily to that same old religeous story?
For my part, call god Jehova, Allah, Jehovallah... , I don't care!
I can live very happy without god, without bible, without veil, without wig, without saints, without holy water..."

Here's the story in detail.

What would you do about Zimbabwe?
Have Zimbabwe's neighbors got their heads firmly stuck in the sand?

President Robert Mugabe received a loud round of applause when he was introduced at the start of the Southern African Development Community summit in Lusaka, Zambia.

But Zambia's president, Levy Mwanawasa, broke ranks and broke his silence by calling on the people of Zimbabwe to 'maintain peace at all costs.' Ok, it's hardly stinging, but what are Zimbabwe's neighbors prepared to do about Mugabe?

We'll be assembling our own summit here at Bush House (in the BBC World Service canteen downstairs, which reminds me of a Noah's Ark of humanity...). What would you do about Zimbabwe?

Jadoung Metty in Ohio asks 'Is Zimbabwe Africa's problem?'

Speak to you soon,
Anu

Cheers,
Anu

I've only been to Moscow once, and as any visitor to the city would probably say, it's far from the concrete Communist monstrosity you might expect. In fact, Moscow is elegant, pretty and majestic. I wasn't there long enough to get to grips with the Russian character, but certainly, from far away, Russia does often seem proud to the point of intransigence, and sometimes, belligerence.

In May this year, Russia tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile system and a recent Russian submarine expedition to the North Pole saw Russia plant a flag on the seabed. Litvinenko... alleged attacks on Georgia... threats of cutting off oil & gas to Europe.... Is Russia right to flex its muscles? If you're Russian, do you feel your country deserves more respect? Do you feel President Putin speaks for you? ...

Paul has been assembling people from across continents to speak to us. Mike Averko, who is unapologetically pro-Russian, is causing controversy before we've even put him on air. A blogger we approached said they wouldn't 'demean' themselves to participate in a programme with him. Judge for yourself- here's one of Mike's posts.

Here's a great link to special BBC features on resurgent Russia.

Post your comments here.

State of Emergency
We're also closely watching events in Pakistan, where there have been persistent rumours for the past 24 hours about a possible state of emergency. If you're in Pakistan, what have you been hearing? Add your views here.

Well, as I sign off, Fiona and Mark are clearing the shelves and desks of two years of assembled souvenirs... Mardi Gras beads from New Orleans... a leprechaun from Donegal... a marble Indian elephant... a collection of tacky snow globes from Finland, Boston and Cleveland... a ballot from the South African elections and of course piles and piles of your old emails, texts and blog posts that keep us going! Tomorrow, we'll be moving to another floor as the builders come in to refurbish the offices of World Have Your Say, Newshour, Europe Today and the World Today here at Bush House in central London. So if tomorrow's blog posts are late... it's only because we're trying to figure out which box we put the computers in!

Speak to you soon,
Anu

Hola, como estas?

Javier and Bruno, two of our colleagues from the BBC's Latin American services joined our morning meeting today. We discussed Darfur, after the news that the UN is sending 26,000 peacekeepers there. But Bruno and Javier say no one in Latin America cares much about Darfur. Are they right?

So on that note, when Britain's prime minister Gordon Brown says he wants to create a "great coalition of conscience" to tackle poverty and issues like Darfur, can he succeed? Do you think the mood in your country is changing to one of greater responsibility and awareness? Or is this a touchy-feely way of making us think something's being done, when really, we can't be bothered?

Iweala says it's great to help... but not in the spirit of cultural superiority. He's angry at the ad campaigns showing "portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted 'tribal markings' on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters. This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help."

We're aiming to put together our own 'coalition of conscience'-- who should we include? Who in your country has a strong moral compass and has led the fight to greater equality and justice? Does the world care more... or are we doomed to remain in a permanent state of global apathy?

(Gina in the USA emailed us to say: "Many of the latino immigrants pay their taxes but our culture has rejected them. The US has put its nose into the business of every other country. Why are we refusing to help these people out?")

SHOULD RELIGION BE KEPT OUT OF SCHOOL?
A teaching assistant here in the UK is seeking compensation for religious discrimination after she was disciplined for stopping a student reading from a Harry Potter book.

Here's a link to the full story.

She says Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft and therefore goes against her Pentecostal upbringing.

Was the school right to reprimand her? Whose freedom is being affected here?

TAMIL EXODUS
And we'll be talking about the Sri Lankan government expelling hundreds of Tamils from the capital, Colombo.

The full story is here. What does it say about peace prospects in Sri Lanka?