| Religious debate: Linguistic Errors | |
| Pointless discussions | |
| A discussion is said to be pointless if it changes no ones mind AND it results in no extra justifications. Being middle-aged, SO MANY demands on my time, why do I care? It builds good web sites, because you are friends, and because it is entertaining to see intelligent people make elementary mistakes. Here is my plan: letters as typed, and my problems. Please justify yourself or look bad !! | |
| Mohan Sir Shetye | |
| Dear Friends, Intellect and Emotions are
the tools. When we are driven by the tools or when we become part of the
tools, we are not in a position to fully understand the true limitations
of the tools or their potential to cause the harm. If we were a part of
a gun we would not know that gun kills. We would probably relate to the
other parts by their functions, size shape etc. Therefore, in my opinion
a truly non-religious person is the one who is separated from the tools.
And who truly understands the limitations of the tools. By this
definition most of us, whether we like to admit it or not, are religious
in nature. Any other definition made with in the domain of the
tools would characterize an extremely religious and an extremely
non-religious person as the same. Mohan S. Shetye
Intellect and Emotions are the tools 1. what is a tool? 2. I dont think they are like! There are anti-intellect and anti-emotion tools. |
|
| Vijay Sir Gupta | |
| Dear Krish, Thank you for your comments. I think the philosophy of the Bahai faith is excellent. (I have seen their Lotus Temple in New Delhi.) But Bahais are a small minority among Muslims, and I have been told that they are a hounded group in some Islamic countries like Iran. My point is not what Koran literally said or meant 1000+ year ago. Many religious texts written centuries ago, and interpreted literally today, could contain nasty passages. My question is what is the interpretation of those problematic Koranic verses TODAY? Can a significant majority of the custodians of Islam (especially in Islamic countries) publicly say that those verses are obsolete, irrelevant, or mean something totally different TODAY? Can they publicly say that religious concepts like kafir and jihad, and destruction of statues, are outdated? Even the Imam(?) of Jama Masjid in Delhi recently supported the Taliban decision to destroy Buddha's statues on religious/Koranic grounds. And most foreign Islamic fighters and suicide bombers in Kashmir are trained for jihad against kafirs. When a group's survival or a nation's territorial integrity is threatened, they have to deal with the reality as it is, not as it could be. VijayG Why is your question not about literal meaning? Why isnt my failure to see correction of text a proof to me that the sole reasons I am safe is because lack of usefulness in exterminating this kafir, Americans will get angry at these type of efforts, ... Sir imam is a moron. I opposed the destruction because they were irreplacable inheritence of all afgans ever, and this act is still an internal affair and so as irrelevant to imam as to dak Sir kumar. You can feel elated/sad argue for/against but should be severely punished for doing effective things. I don't think talk is effective, nor sharp violence is, but steady boycott IS. |
|
| Krish Sir Krishnan | |
| (and others who interpret or believe that that the
Koran has ahitlist, EVEN IF there are unambiguous words to that effect in the Koran) It is precisely this sort of misconception of Islam (or Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion) by human beings for economic and/or political purposes, that makes religions abominable, and it is no wonder that many intelligent people turn into atheists (Agnostics too).. Let us first remember that the Koran, as all other religious scriptures, was written by human beings.(Oh brother, now we are in real trouble) The irony of this is that the same text from the Koran may be misused by both Mulsim and non-Muslim power-seekers (scoundrels) to set their followers at war with each other. Many unscrupulous 'religious' intelligentsia in Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam have abused religion to control their followers, and to protect their own power and circumstances in jungle fashion (kill or be killed) - more grist for the atheists' mill. Surely in the 21st century we need to be more enlightened and appreciate the core values and best practices (regrettably corporate terminology but relevant in this context) of all religions. As one of my friends told me, human beings are not intelligent enough as a species to have survived without the grace of some higher power. Folks, try reading some of the principles of the Bahai faith.... I am no Islamic scholar but I believe they are much closer to Islam than what you chose to believe. The people running the hate-mongering website from NJ are demented in my opinion. I will not be surprised if that NJ site is being secretly backed by other forces who want to keep tensions high in Israel and surrounding areas, for economic and political reasons such as .... to keep the arms sales going, to keep the oil flowing to the west .... to keep generating funds for research, .... to keep markets growing with new technologies and innovations, .... to preserve the lifestyles in the west (which has attracted all the IIT/K alumni who are debating this to settle there) |
|
| Maulik Sir Radia | |
| I could not agree with Krish more (Really
Sir!). I am really see
no parellel in Jews amd Muslims in Isreal versus Hindus and Muslims in
India (Even I can Sir!). In Israel it is the question of physical occupation of the land.
In India the differences are historical (Now). The Muslims in Indias are the
same indegenous people who, over a period of time, converted to Islam.
There is no such thing in Isreal. (Wrong sir, a lot are). Maulik |
|
| Sajal Sir Mitra | |
| I just looked up the definition of the term
"Semite" in Webster's dictionary. It says, "member of any
of a group of people of southwestern Asia chiefly represented by jews
and arabs..." So it appears that even the Palestinians and Israelis
are "indigenous." (There seem to be ashkenazi
and sephardic jews. It seems not racially homogenous at all!)
Religion is what differentiates the two groups. Ultimately it's a question of who has the resources. That's what will determine who's lineage is going to flourish (survival of the fittest). True with plants, animals, etc, etc. In most places currently people are grouping by religion to secure the resources. Animals are still grouping by species to meet their needs in the wild. I can not wait for them to grow up and start segregating by religion (Even for humans I thought economics was more important. Other than freedom what charm does even US have? It is when people start to argue about proper ways of doing things not because of rational justification, but because of loyal suffering, that I throw up.) !! |
|
| Vijay Sir Gupta | |
| Dear Krish, I am sorry to have to say it so bluntly to a dear friend, and I apologize in advance if my response should offend you. Your comments reflect the typical head-in-the-sand attitude that has dogged Hindus for centuries and made them one of the meekest and most vulnerable religious groups. KK: Why should we demand an explanation about some passages from the Koran? VG: Suppose the US Constitution were to have an explicit clause in it stating that the US is committed to the destruction of all black nations. And further assume that there were also plenty of real evidence of Americans' prejudice towards blacks. Should the black people in African nations then simply say, "Why question the Americans or their Constitution? We know of some nice Americans. Let us just teach our children how to love all Americans." I wouldn't. (Precise right kind of thinking called hypthetical here!!) KK: I am sure there is enough questionable content in every religion's scriptures. VG: Well, sure. But all questionable contents are not created equal. Are you suggesting that theft is just as bad as murder because, after all, both are crimes. None of the Hindu scriptures I know of calls for the destruction of all non-believers. (What VijayG says is difference between observor-questionable and universal-objectionable. Or in my lingo language abuse and political disagreement. THE single reason for thoughtful opposition to world court in US is that such a body can not be limited. The thought of legal abuse leaves many cold) KK: We are intelligent enough to know core principles and values. VG: Yes, I know my core values. But I don't want to second-guess other people's core values. I would like them to state their core values clearly, especially if there is evidence that their values might include things like jihad against kafirs. (Allowing jihad to mean universally condemned practices is bad semantics.) KK: The Imam......... VG: The Imam of JM, Delhi may have lost his credibility as a leader in your eyes, but that is not what counts. He is still (presumably) credible in the eyes of the majority of his followers. And to repeat my old mantra: Followers make the leaders, not the other way around. So, unless the Imam is fired, I will probably conclude that the MAJORITY of his followers support (or at least tolerate) the destruction of Buddha's statues in Afghanistan. Incidentally, Pakistan's Islamic political party Jamaat-e-Islami has even praised the Nazi-like Taliban edict requiring Hindus to wear labels. So the Taliban is not just a fringe group of crazies from Mars. (So what should we be doing? ruled out are talking, bombing kabul, appeal to reason, patience, ....) KK: Let us say that the 'Kafirs' are Ignorance, Lethargy... VG: I doubt that simply redefining objectionable words has ever resolved any conflict. Besides, the new definition has to be accepted by the people who use this word (and concept) frequently, not by us. (THE real question is they don't, so what next?) Regards, VijayG PS: Like you, I have known many Muslim friends (including a Bahai). My best friend in UC Santa Barbara was a Muslim from Pakistan. However, the Pakistani groups and the Indian groups in the US tend to socialize separately. Moreover, most Muslims seem to be quite reticent about religious issues, at least in the company of non-Muslims. (My roommate for years was the son of a Pakistani colonel. It was not "let live" attirude but "ineffective useless" attitude that made us tolerate each other at start. Some thing that burgeoned into real friendship over time. Islam/agnosticism IS an issue, but a minor one.) |
|
| Sir Bhaskar | |
| Krish -- Right on! Joey, you too. It's refreshing to hear the voices of reason speaking out. (Since when have similar voices become those of reason, sir?) -- Bhaskar |
|
| Ravi Sir Challu | |
| Dear Arun, Krish, Joey, VijayG and other contributors, Somehow this debate has got deflected from political choices communities need to make based on their religion/ ethnicity to personal beliefs on morality/ethics/(a)theism. This discussion will continue ad nauseum ad infintum if there is no common thread. SO I have a few very simple questions that could help clear up the debate. (A debate has reasons beyond conversion, on this important topic if ad infinitism so much for better.) Do political choices communities make emerge from the personal beliefs of individuals about what is moral or ethical or are they driven by survival instinct? (Perhaps individual beliefs already include the crux of surivability beyond temporal empiricism.) Should communities continue to stick to morally and ethically correct stands of individuals and reject any political move based on their ethnicity/religion and that seems to offer them shelter and better survival chances when faced by aggresive stands taken by other community based political groups. (better survival chances? aggressive?) IF THE ANSWER TO BOTH IS YES then what is this debate all about? And if some of you would are already shaking your heads East to West and back the please do explain why you think so and what is a viable alternate strategy these communities should follow. And please do not tell me about your personal moral, ethical or religious point of view. It is of very little use to me if I am not already singing the same bhajans or hymns. Give me a viable political strategy. (viable? YOU shall derive it from debates like these!) Regards Ravi Challu My last mail has an error. " IF THE ANSWER TO BOTH IS YES then what is this debate all about?" should really read as " If you think that personal preferences cannot determine community choice then what is this debate all about?" |
|
| Maulik Sir Radia | |
| Vijay, Are we writing a legal brief here or having a discussion? (Difference beyond boring?)?Are you advocating that we re-write Koran because of a passage(Its a call for Islamic believers, saying that non-believers feel threatened)? While you are at it, how about Bible too as it precsribes 'eye for an eye'(So do I, what about it?)? The constitution of a country has a power of enforcability of its laws which can over-ride the religious edicts if it is against the basic freedom (Can't a constituition demand that unconstitutional interpretations are disallowed too? VijayG point out there are uncontested evil passages!). Do you think Imam of JM is preaching to kill all the Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and others (Justifying others doing so for sure)? Because if you think that's what is going on here than may be you should sponsor the HinduUnity web site and defend the oppression OF Hindus BY the Muslims in India!!! (Pointless offer, he wouldn't accept even if you could!) I find it incredible that you can't say streight that the site HinduUnity is a hate site and is controlled by some fanatics (Oh yes he can). Are the Hindus in India opressed that we have to form a website to promote unity? Just because we tolerate other religions and beliefs we are meek and vulnerable (Says who?)? Vulnerable for what? I do not see it that way. Hindus are the biggest religious group in India. What is there to be afraid of from other religious group (Jews are the biggest ...?)? You are mixing religious and political powers. The majority, Hindus in this case, is politically devided and the minorities, Muslims and Christians, are then the "King Makers". The same thing happens in US when the Democrats and Republicans court the black/minority votes. In the process they offer the minorities special considerations which is not very well liked by the losing party. Think about it (My thinking of blacks as King makers astounds me Sir!). Maulik |
|