I get the feeling the religious extremists may not like cities like Mumbai because they undermine their franchise. For instance, in Medieval times, the Pope had a palace and servants, who in turn were granted the right to the souls of peasants all over Europe. Everyone in the franchise wins, the peasants kneel and show devotion to a god that speaks through a priest, who is at least conceivably self-serving.
It appears one cannot have an authoritative and dogmatic religion or "asshole franchises" of a police state in a place where people aren't scared or vulnerable. One of the few things a police state provides is protection from competing police states (in the sense of a neighbor threatening to invade). Religious franchises can be said to provide more things, but peace of mind would surely be one of them. Neither matters if people do not fear for their safety or soul. Economic and civil freedom are insidious because they provide safety and comfort for people who might otherwise turn to religions and dictators.
Sin city? What the Jain priest said in the article can be interpreted as being self-serving, if possibly undeliberate.
It appears one cannot have an authoritative and dogmatic religion or "asshole franchises" of a police state in a place where people aren't scared or vulnerable. One of the few things a police state provides is protection from competing police states (in the sense of a neighbor threatening to invade). Religious franchises can be said to provide more things, but peace of mind would surely be one of them. Neither matters if people do not fear for their safety or soul. Economic and civil freedom are insidious because they provide safety and comfort for people who might otherwise turn to religions and dictators.
Sin city? What the Jain priest said in the article can be interpreted as being self-serving, if possibly undeliberate.