EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism - giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds - are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten - to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's - or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies - that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" - and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs - but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea - at the heart of the Universal Declaration - is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllNo religion deserves respect! I don't think there's any religion on this planet that hasn't dabbled in censorship, discrimination, mass-murder, oppression etcetera. It's people and their actions that count, not their fairy-stories.
I found religion the first time I was slowly doused in acid as well...
Yes, and secular peopoe NEVER engage in these things. Communism was Atheistic, and thank goodness they never killed anyone!
I have no problem with any religion unless the belief is used to harm others.
Unfortunately, most if not all, can be used this way.
But it is an incomplete picture to suggest that it is only the big traditional religions that force their beliefs on others.
Secular humanism is not benign either.
GMOs in your food--you can thank the cult of science for that.
If you question it, you are a luddite.
If you question human progress, you are mocked.
While I think abortion is nothing to be proud of, its not something that can be stopped by force. This however, doesnt mean that we should cannibalize fetal brain tissue in attempt to cure illness.
The cult of science uses the mantra-anything is justified in the name of progress or science.
When science creates problems-like GMOs, then the answer is to use more science to deal with it.
If you criticize what scientists do, i.e. condemn the use of innocent members of other species in experiments, then they say the world would succumb to plagues and misery if it is stopped.
Exactly what an ancient priest who read the entrails of animals might have said.
Dont defy the Gods.
Humans who think they are gods are a greater danger than those who think an invisible man lives in the sky.
"This however, doesnt mean that we should cannibalize fetal brain tissue in attempt to cure illness."
I agree. It is much better to simply flush the fetus down the toilet as currently done. These fetal tissues come from frozen embryos, "warehoused" by those who are attemting to become pregnant by artificial means. But of course I am bothered by the question of what happens to the "souls" of the frozen embryos. What happens to the souls of those who murder these frozen embryos? Shouldn't all of these frozen embryos be required to be carried to term?
"Dont defy the Gods."
Which ones?
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
W - you've engaged too many unsubstantiated beliefs and generalities here to make any points that stick. You seem to confuse science, which has nothing to do with "beliefs," with capitalism and advertising. The corruption of science for material gain doesn't mean science itself is corrupt. Humans have learned a great deal about the environment in which we live through careful observation and hypothesis-testing; because some profit from the misapplication or distortion of science impugns the corrupting influences of greed and avarice, not science.
Some scientists have corrupted themselves by working to promote consumption of the products of capitalism, some even working on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - that doesn't impugn science - the process of observing, testing, and learning about physical phenomena - which is something we all do from the moment we're born. You conflate secular humanism with science, yet philosophy, like religion, has no place in science at all. You should stick with questioning the motives of specific scientists, or at least specific "scientific" industries (again, these practice "science" rendered through the framework of capitalism) that assault your sensibilities.
Many scientists, including myself, think that genetically modified organisms represent potentially harmful manipulation of genomes and evolution, yet I've never been called a Luddite. The primary problem, in my opinion, is that GMOs have been marketed without sufficient research to determine their potential effects on other organisms, including humans and the ones we ingest. The complex and extensive testing necessary to determine direct and indirect effects of such manipulations would render the products obsolete long after the attendant capital funding and profits disappeared, so, consistent with marketing and sales, capitalists foist goods on humans, likely every day, that are harmful. The moral decision to conduct research on other organisms to test GMOs is not one I'd be willing to make, but doing so doesn't taint scientific methods. I personally don't trust humans to modify or create organisms that are superior to what evolution has provided over millions of years. Many scientists routinely question the products of science-abetted capitalism, and the "mocking" that rejoins such criticisms largely originates from anthropocentric greed and ego, not from science. The defenders of such corrupted science just shrug off the criticisms, funded as they are by large pharmaceutical and chemical and military enterprises, and continue to fall back on their capitalistic dogma.
The issue of using other organisms in research is a moral one; despite your protestations, the world is filled with "innocent" organisms that consume other ones. Blaming science for questionable morality and profiteering is like blaming uranium for nuclear weapons. Lots of humans who aren't scientists kill other organisms, including other humans, and many of them do so with all moral righteousness founded on belief systems that have no basis in reality. People who make decisions based on beliefs are the primary reason the world's ecosystems are such a mess, and why humans kill one another.
I sure as hell hope you're an anti-war, non-violent, non-driving, non-chemical-using, non-leather-wearing vegan, otherwise you're simply a shallow hypocrite. And your "gods" are figments of your imagination.
Sioux Rose
SAND FLEA: If more scientists held your respect for nature and demonstrated your level of prudence, I would applaud the field for its enlightenment. Perhaps you are there to covertly raise the consciousness of your peers.
"Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this."
I wish you were equally outraged when our Southern Baptists started thumping the Bible and used religious metaphors just after we bombed Iraq to pieces. Bushy Boy had religion on his mind judging by the bible-thumpers who descended on Iraq. Maybe you should visit the American South to get a flavor of our very own Saudi Arabia. Oh and while you are at it drop by in Tel Aviv ... to get a whiff of what Zionism reeks of.
Organized religions reduce the Cosmic down to the merely human. It is the source of their strength and endurance but is also their greatest weakness. You will find the merely human at the bottom of the toilet, along with George Wanker Bush, Rick Warren, Ayman al Zawahiri and the Spanish Inquisition.
"George Wanker Bush"
Writing this so often must give you a boner.
One of the speakers at President Obama's inauguration believes the next big civil rights struggle in America will be for the rights of the GLBT community.
Perhaps that's true.
But I'm starting to believe we need a movement to recognize my right not to participate in any religion at all. I believe I should have the same rights as all other American citizens. I do not believe I should be looked down upon or shunned based on my choice.
The problems of violence in the name of religion are not ancient stories from our distant past. Palestinians and Jews are killing each other right now. Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other right now. Members of America’s religions are seeking increasing power on all fronts. And the Catholic Church is still protecting its pedophiles.
I believe the founding fathers intended our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to guarantee Americans not only freedom OF religion but also freedom FROM religion.
For me the reality is simple: On Earth right now religion often means violence and oppression.
John
Sioux Rose
JOHN: Excellent post.
I think there might be some wisdom in religious text, but there is an equal amount in philosophical texts as well.
Organized religion only exists for the misogynistic wet dreams of a few.
Love
Zero
Sioux Rose
Good posts, everyone.
Notice that it's the Catholic Church AND fundamentalist Christians who are backing this. If this marriage of repressive regimes in all nations isn't frightening readers, I don't know what would? There are MILLIIONS who believe the U.S. is intended "by God" to be a Christian theocracy. Part of the process involves seeing the father as undisputed head of the family. It's a totally authoritarian hierarchical structure that steals sovereign rights from women. George Lakoff made the telling analogy that children raised in these strict parent-father-oriented homes grow up to follow conservative views. (Children raised in more nurturing homes where their personal interests are fostered grow up to be more progressive.)
In my view the telling thing held in common by the fundamentalists of these various sects is their desire to REPRESS human sexuality, force women into having children they do not want (by making it tough not only to get abortions, but to obtain safe birth control); and of course the demonizing of homosexuals is part of this fetishism about a strict Adam-Eve version of life.
The inhibition of free speech is the fig leaf, the policies that will no longer be up for discussion are the real horror here; and they particularly hold prejudice against women and will limit female rights everywhere.
At a time when the patriarchal views about the world, the various governments led by men, led by religions that see god as a male, have gotten us to three overlapping crises: one of climate, one of economies, and one of war AS product (being touted through the promoting of fear and terrorism everywhere), we need more MALE insistence on owning the wheels of power and navigating like we need a collective hole in the head.
It is HIGH time that different voices, inclusive of the Indigenous, and people of color, and women, had EQUAL time in those decisions that will and do impact the whole of mankind.
This must be the mundane equivalent of some crack in the cosmic egg, that so many recidivistic factions are seeking to regain control, to hold back the momentum of change that is inevitable. Whether we see it as End Times, the end of oil, the date (2012) marked by the Mayan prophecies/calendar, the end of an era... it is CLEAR that mankind cannot live the old ways. They have so clearly taken us TO the abyss. And WEBBER, I think you raise excellent points about the reflex to trust science where religion can't deliver facts... science is its own priesthood, and has done many many dangerous things (bombs, biotech engineering, all the chemicals now in our water and bodies, etc.) What is needed is a holistic appreciation of life based on balance, based on a recognition of the interaction of the Divine Yang and the Divine Yin. (I have used the DNA molecule's anatomical structure as metaphor of this poem of what works, and how our lives ought be modeled after it. Keyword: BALANCE!)
Good to 'see' you again, Sioux.
Great post! May i add, as i read "seeing the father as undisputed head of the family..." i naturally thought of the pope, the 'father of the universal church family'. And he is infallible.
Sioux Rose
READY TO: Yeah. I love Fellini's classic film, "Roma" where he mocks the church. There's a scene where all those who give generously are invited to a papal fashion show. (Remember when the Nun's habit got shorter?) And as the "models" move up the ranks of one of the oldest established hierarchies in the Western World, the costumes get more and more ornate until the Pople (according to Fellini) is like a gigantic electronically emanating robotic-looking being.
Sioux,
Synchronicity rears its head here (apologies to all for the personal discourse here).
I just saw a fellini documentary last night and thought about how if there weren't a catholic church, there wouldn't have been a fellini.
Sioux Rose
READY: La Strada (best examination in film of machismo that I have ever seen) and Satiricon are two films that largely do not focus on the church. Fellini looked into various prisms of human nature and activity, and he remains one of my favorite directors. I was glad he got the lifetime achievement award at the Academy Awards just before he passed over.
sioux,
I think he was a profound artist. I think he saw through the debauchary of the church and it informed so much of what he did.
Sioux Rose
TRANSFORM: I agree. The profound artist sees the world in its magic and sees through all the bogus minuets of protocol (false rituals) that people are expected (if not demanded) to perform. He definitely saw through that, too. And how about Lina Wurtmueller... does not The Seven Beauties constitute one of the best films ever done on these and related topics?
Sioux Rose
YOHOCOMA: You were not born to walk in my mocassins and I have SEEN things science cannot explain. I HOPE for you a moment of enlightenment in this lifetime, as your prejudice against things you are NOT learned in blinds you to what truths do exist. Jung was an advocate of astrology and understood these archetypal forms. Or do you think Freud made more sense with penis envy?
How I make my living is of no consequence to you, in that MUCH of what I have spent my time learning I have shared without remuneration and continue to do so. I'd like to see others in this forum demonstrate the levels of altruism that I have. My work is not commercial, which is to say feeding feel-good pabulum half-truths to the masses, and therefore I generally must self-publish. There is NO profit in this. I feel I answer to a higher authority. I am tired of your tireless jabs at what I do, and what I believe. Perhaps the concept "judge not that ye not be judged" applies to you, or will soon enough. You wish to argue FOR your limitations fine. The human intellect is trained like Pavlov's dogs to see what is PERMITTED to be seen, and like all our narrow senses, is a pale reflection of ALL that is. MYSTICS have understood this since the dawn of time and many times mystics are way ahead of scientists in what they share and understand.
I have gone over this turf with you before, although usually you don't return to the threads for my response. You seem to think it's self-validating to merely throw stones. You have a sound intellect but a limited one. Believe what you want to believe, and if possible refrain from attacking a universe of understanding that simply transcends where your narrow mind can take you. Obviously you are free to not believe a thing, but you have NO right to tell others what to believe, nor are you in a position to invalidate what their own education has led them to recognize.
Sioux Rose
YOHOCOMA: I just want to make this very clear: If I charge a fee to do a client's chart analysis, we're talking about 90 minutes of my time. Multiply the time factor by several factors and that indicates the info I share on this sight. If profit was my motivation, I'd be an idiot as per cost-effective ratios? Although I was attacked by a certain someone regarding my website, I may have mentioned in TWICE in all the months I've contributed to this forum, and that was because someone ASKED. I happen to have sent gratis copies of my books to several persons, too. So if this was about promoting "my business," I would be a very very bad business woman indeed. VERY real forces have cut off the access of voices like mine from media. Therefore in the interest of expanding understanding, I utilize sites like this one. Much of my work is unpaid, it is done because I dare say it IS my calling. I hope this clarifies.
yohocoma you are a prime example of the cracking point that Sioux Rose is sincerely expressing. Just because you have eliminated any and all conscious thought that does not originate from "rational" thinking does not mean you have attained critical nirvana. Rationalists are as your example shows just as susceptible to an extremist dogma and may indeed be the new torchbearers of such.
There are many paths to appreciation of the good things in life, how can one be better than the other if they all get us there?
Let us in our rationalizing be rational.
Sioux Rose, my hats off to you.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Sioux Rose
I am tempted to accept your olive branch. Peace.
Yohocoma,
I understand what you are saying, but i don't think it applies to Sioux Rose.
She is very rational. She has astute analytical abilities and this is evidenced in the way she writes and can take large principles or concepts and apply them to specifics, and vice versa.
Using one's intuitive sensing is extremely important. Einstein worked that way, in fact. He said that he just 'knew' what was true and the mathematical proofs were secondary. "Imagination is more important than knowledge". He also said, "No problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it".
If we use only the rational part of our minds we are stuck within a closed system. There can be no larger vision or breakthroughs in our thinking. We will stay in our old assumptions, merely moving the same puzzle pieces around and coming up with different variations on the same themes.
That is not to say there isn't a place for rational thought and analysis. But insight and intuition and using inner senses is what brings in true innovation. In fact, all true 'scientists' speak about how they 'saw' things in a vision or a dream--that they suddenly had a direct 'knowing'. Inspiration is key. This does not come through logic. Human consciousness is far more complex than that.
I just thought i would weigh in on this subject.
Sioux
YOHOCOMA: That's the best mixed compliment I've ever received! I should "pull an Obama" and bring you over to "my team" by asking you to edit one of my manuscripts (for pay, of course), since you'd be a better judge of when I am losing my potential readership and/or obscuring the point I wish to make.
I would ask that you consider that having given me the nod on intelligence, you consider that it was my intelligence that drew me to study the things that I have. This has included time in India, Nepal, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Caribbean, Mexico, and most of the U.S. I am VERY well read on esoteric topics, and having had my own television show in the Florida Keys for more than 7 years, was privileged to interview other luminaries, and plausibly a few frauds, in my field (or related fields). I think Hamlet's comment to Horatio was apt, "There are more things in heaven and earth, than dreamt of in your philosphy." To the one haunted by the ghost, all scientific conjecture about the impossible nature of such an event loses credibility. Or as Carlos Casteneda's teacher said to Don Juan, "You have to take responsibility for living in a weird world." INDEED!
Sioux Rose
READY TO TRANSFORM: Excellent defense! (Especially since I am fighting a flu or virus at the moment, so not that up to mental fencing matches!) Boy, could we co-host a cool radio program! I hope Yohocoma can HEAR your points, he seems to be allergic to mine.
Siouxrose - how I wish I knew you. I learn a great deal from your posts. Thank you.
Sioux Rose
GIA: Thank you for the acknowledgement. I spend time in the forum bringing a topic marginalized to its bastardized version of "newpaper horoscopes" into its larger dimensions to educate thinkers in a way of possibly enlarging their own thought process. My favorite response to those "that don't believe in astrology" is, "And gravity doesn't believe in your, either!"
Nice sentiments but very dangerous. A warmongering president would love to use such justifications as an excuse to start another war that would really be about corporate power or natural resources.
Come now. They can always find a reason. If nothing else, didn't the past eight years make that clear enough?
There is no more reason to "respect" religion than there is to "respect" witchcraft or what have you, but it seems the human race will just not do without it.
Unfortunately.
Not all reasons are equal in their potential to rouse the rabble, and the rabble need to be pretty roused to willingly join, or encourage (or at least accept) their children to join, an armed force that is to invade and occupy a distant land at great peril to the members of that force. The objections to particular religions given in the piece are typical of the highly emotional purported reasons, though completely different from the real reasons, that wars are fought.
I would add that I in no way am defending religion per se, as I have been an agnostic since I was a child. However, given the state of this nation today, with fascists and corporatists in control, now might not be the optimal time to promote a campaign to "rid the world of evil," unless it means ridding the world of fascists and corporatists.
The rabble were decidedly not aroused in the slightest in the early 60's, as I recall. That ten-year-long American war in Southeast Asia just sort of sneaked up on them, and only when thousands of Americans began dying did the various Ministries of Truth begin cranking out the "Commies are coming!" agi-prop.
All they neeed to do was draft young men, and ship them off. Piece of cake.
But the draft aroused the youth, and all manner of trouble (for the plutocracy) sprang from that. I almost wish they would bring the draft back, as it could turn a generation of apathetic computer game players and Internet surfers into an energized and engaged army of progressives.
What a biased author ! He didn't even mention India where secularism is known as SICKularism. In India, Muslims and Christians are given the rights to religious autonomy but all other religions are taxed to their throats and the US and Europe love it ! I've heard of the rise of Hindu nationalists but I don't blame them and wouldn't be surprised to see more Hindus who feel robbed and misrepresented join those vigilante groups.
I would hate to see that country turn into religious oppression given the severe poverty status out here in Mississippi as a result of the Christian cultists dominating similar to the severe poverty status in Pakistan where militant Islam rather than moderated Islam dominates.
"In India, Muslims and Christians are given the rights to religious autonomy but all other religions are taxed to their throats"
How did you come up with this gem ? Are you suggesting that taxation in India is based on religion ? What are you smoking ? Are you one of those closet hindu fundamentalists ??
Actually the closest thing to a secular State is India. The multitude of religions that manage to co-exist, despite the occasional flare-ups, is amazing.
"How did you come up with this gem ? Are you suggesting that taxation in India is based on religion ? "
Go check the facts and see for yourself. It's already well known and yes taxation is based on religious discrimination just like in the USA whereby churches don't get taxed.
"Actually the closest thing to a secular State is India. The multitude of religions that manage to co-exist, despite the occasional flare-ups, is amazing."
Go tell that to those who are neither Christian or Muslim. You wouldn't know anyway. Plus your mistaking me as a "hindu fundamentalist" just goes to show that you don't know the real meaning of the term secular. Sure, there are quite a lot of religions but there have been known religious wars especially in the form of terrorist attacks and if you think the western media even covers them other than if one of the casualties is from US, Israel, or EU, you haven't been paying attention. The same thing has been going on in other Asian countries so India isn't alone.
"yes taxation is based on religious discrimination"
You are either seriously deluded or fudging the 'facts'. India is a deeply religious country that respects a multitude of religions and has been this way for centuries. And yes, religious bodies like churches, temples and mosques do get tax benefits across the board. Im an atheist and dont believe in any religion but i do respect the right of individuals to follow their own religion. Im against ALL religious bodies getting public funding but thats another issue.
"Go tell that to those who are neither Christian or Muslim. "
I agree Muslims and Hindus feel less secure as they are minorities. Ive visited the country many times and have friends across all the divides in religious and social strata and am frankly amazed how that country manages to survive so well. People are way more tolerant of each others faith. The recent Hindu fundamentalist surge is a blot on the conscience but that has receeded in the past 5 years. Class seems more of an issue these days with the recent upsurge in economic growth.
The western media is extremely biased in favor of the West as is to be expected. If you choose to get your news from the western media there isnt much one can do. Maybe someone forgot to mention how racist the West really is, despite Obama and all that nice stuff.
Religion is used to control. And to silence reason. Some religions are founded on visions, revelations, fairy tales, deeply ill minds, and those wishing to make a buck or three. I have little respect for religion. I beleive someday these crazies will get as all killed. I no longer bow to an invisible god.
Silence is Consent.
I have to agree with John L. IMAGINE THERE IS NO HEAVEN, IT IS EASY IF YOU TRY, THERE IS NO HELL BELOW US, ABOVE US ONLY SKY, IMAGINE THERE IS NO COUNTRIES, IT ISN'T HARD TO DO, THERE IS NOTHING TO KILL OR DIE FOR , AND NO RELIGION TOO.
Balanced indeed! More condemnation of Islam occurs in this article than of any other religion. Given the travesties of all religions, this focus raises question of Mr. Hari's bias. Exception is the "Shylock passage" whereby, "I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it." Only other "condemnation" of a religion than Islam is, "I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead," and tepid "condemnation" it is. Other than this being harmless in contrast to the criticisms of Islam, why should anyone "respect" Johann Hari for not respecting "the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead?" Revealed by Mr. Hari and other commenters to his article is the very bigotry he so mendaciously condemns.
His focus on Islam is based on the fact that the re-writing of the job of the UN's Rapporteur is being brought about by "a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten." Now I have not yet checked the accuracy of his assertion, but his own possible bias aside, this would seem to be the reason the abuses of this religious set are being focused on.
Doesnt he criticize the afterlife and the rebirth philosophy also?
Sorry this condemnation of religions seems to be picking on one for you.
I wonder why.
Love
Zero
I fully agree with Hari. Religion is maybe the biggest obstacle to all aspects of human progress. These competing belief systems invariably lock horns over the centuries, and now as much as ever, spawning wars, intolerance, repression, anti-intellectualism, anti-science dogmas, fear, narrowness of vision, and ultimately the cult of death masquerading as some fatuous notion of "eternal life."
Every one of them, especially the Western monotheisms, the Abrahamic traditions, have devolved into grostesque caricatures of what they were originally. They all have elements of deep insight into the human condition and stress the centrality of compassion for all life, but curiously they deteriorate into mockeries of what once made them compelling to the imagination. Now they are little but arguments for nihilism, more willing to kill and destroy, or at least oppress and forbid, than stand as beacons of hope, inclusion and a celebration of life and community. They're a plague upon the entire species, a virus that needs to die out if the human race is to continue. Believe in some god or other if you must, but once you organize that belief into a system that terrorizes others into embracing it, you become just another fanatical asshole everyone else has to waste the energies of generations trying to get rid of.
Israel feels justified in exterminating the Palestinians largely because of its sense of religious superiority. Bush felt justified destroying Iraq for the same irrational reasons. We all know how this works. Refusing to "respect" any longer all these insane religious beliefs is a good place to start. It's like figuring out it's not such a great idea to respect a serial killer.
sorry, I forgot.
"Israel feels justified in exterminating the Palestinians largely because of its sense of religious superiority."
Why do you think this is true?
The beliefs of we Christians (and some Jews) should not be criticized. It is not our fault that we have a monopoly on the truth. I thought everybody knew this, but because there seems to be some confusion amongst the heathen, I submit the following wisdom with parenthetical exegesis. It's not to keep you from the everlasting torment you deserve, but to facilitate God's complete destruction of your children and your pets because of your stubborn ignorance.
Matthew 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. (Proof that Jesus was a Republican.)
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.--Psalms 137:9 (No interpretation needed.)
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth thy vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked..--Psalms 58:10 (This is a command not a suggestion.)
He (the Lord) teacheth my hands to war.--Psalms 18:34 (Everybody needs a skill)
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalms 58:3 (Wicked people are wicked from birth - God made them that way. They tell lies immediately after birth, even before they can talk).
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Psalms 50:22 (If you forget God, he'll tear you into pieces too small for anyone to deliver.)
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus (18:23) (Men should not swap tall tales with animals, whereas women should not stand around thinking about having sex with animals. It's too confusing for them. This may sound sexist to some, but who can fathom the mind of God?)
"When thou ... make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing ... ye shall utterly be destroyed." Deuteronomy 4: 25,26 (If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation.)
1 Samuel15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years previously.)
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation. -- Deuteronomy 23:2 (What this means today is that no one is permitted to go to church if there is a bastard in your family lineage dating back approximately to the time the Pilgrims first stoled corn from the natives.)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.-Titus-2:8 (This may sound like it means that any man is likely to make a better philosophical argument than Christianity. But it doesn't. You'll just have to trust me on this one. )
The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, and gluttons.--1:12 Hebrews (No offense intended.)
If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.--14:38 Colossians (Naturally, this verse can't apply to believers)
Isaiah 16:11 Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh. (If you don't respect it and like it, then I'll cut the world's biggest fart in your general direction.)
Ummm...this must be a partial list of those "childish things" to be put away?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Hallelujah sister or brother! You see the light! Considering "Israel's chief rabbinate severs ties with Vatican," clearly "Israel's chief rabbinate" is mistaken, resolving ZeroPointField's accusative query whereby, "Sorry this condemnation of religions seems to be picking on one for you. I wonder why" in a following response to this blog.
"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation. -- Deuteronomy 23:2:
Yipee...no church for me, no church for me!! Yeeehaaaaaaah...
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope