Nice writing.
However to clarify the point
from Buddhist perspective.
There are two ends of the
pendulum.
On one end are the Believers, who
believe that there is God.
On the other are the Atheists, who
believ that there is no God.
A Buddhist however is neither a
believer nor an atheist.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:54
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Defenders of the
Faith -NYT Op ed
You are welcome C'da. And see I am not that "lungi kheda" anti this or
anti that (of religions) that some often would like to paint me as. :)
I too think this was a brilliant piece. Organized religion has done more
harm than good to the world, IMHO.
--Ram
On 3/16/06, Chan
Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks
for sharing it Ram.One of the finest pieces I have read on the subject
with reference to current events. Brilliant!
c-da
At 12:28 PM -0600
3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: >This is an interesting article and
advances the >importance of Atheism in the world
religious >order. I think, many of us (even though we claim >to
belong to some religion or the other) will >find the benefits of
Atheism. > >______________________________ > >Defenders
of the Faith >By SLAVOJ ZIZEK > >London > >FOR
centuries, we have been told that without >religion we are no more
than egotistic animals >fighting for our share, our only morality
that >of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, >can
elevate us to a higher spiritual level. >Today, when religion is
emerging as the >wellspring of murderous violence around
the >world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or >Hindu
fundamentalists are only abusing and >perverting the noble spiritual
messages of their >creeds ring increasingly hollow. What
about >restoring the dignity of atheism, one of >Europe's
greatest legacies and perhaps our only >chance for peace?
> >More than a century ago, in "The Brothers >Karamazov"
and other works, Dostoyevsky warned >against the dangers of godless
moral nihilism, >arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist,
>then everything is permitted. The French >philosopher André
Glucksmann even applied >Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism
to >9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in >Manhattan,"
suggests. > >This argument couldn't have been more wrong:
the >lesson of today's terrorism is that if God >exists, then
everything, including blowing up >thousands of innocent bystanders, is
permitted - >at least to those who claim to act directly
on >behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to >God
justifies the violation of any merely human >constraints and
considerations. In short, >fundamentalists have become no different
than >the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom >everything
was permitted since they perceived >themselves as direct instruments
of their >divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress >Toward
Communism. > >During the Seventh Crusade, led by St.
Louis, >Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered >an old
woman who wandered down the street with a >dish full of fire in her
right hand and a bowl >full of water in her left hand. Asked why
she >carried the two bowls, she answered that with >the fire she
would burn up Paradise until >nothing remained of it, and with the
water she >would put out the fires of Hell until nothing
>remained of them: "Because I want no one to do >good in order
to receive the reward of Paradise, >or from fear of Hell; but solely
out of love for >God." Today, this properly Christian ethical
>stance survives mostly in atheism. > >Fundamentalists do
what they perceive as good >deeds in order to fulfill God's will and
to earn >salvation; atheists do them simply because it is >the
right thing to do. Is this also not our most >elementary experience
of morality? When I do a >good deed, I do so not with an eye
toward >gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did >not, I
could not look at myself in the mirror. A >moral deed is by definition
its own reward. >David Hume, a believer, made this point in
a >very poignant way, when he wrote that the only >way to show
true respect for God is to act >morally while ignoring God's
existence. > >Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether
>the preamble of the European Constitution should >mention
Christianity as a key component of the >European legacy. As usual, a
compromise was >worked out, a reference in general terms to
the >"religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was >modern
Europe's most precious legacy, that of >atheism? What makes modern
Europe unique is that >it is the first and only civilization in
which >atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an >obstacle to
any public post. > >Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting
for, >not least because it creates a safe public space >for
believers. Consider the debate that raged in >Ljubljana, the capital
of Slovenia, my home >country, as the constitutional
controversy >simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant >workers
from the old Yugoslav republics) be >allowed to build a mosque? While
conservatives >opposed the mosque for cultural, political and
>even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly >journal
Mladina was consistently outspoken in >its support for the mosque, in
keeping with its >concern for the rights of those from
other >former Yugoslav republics. > >Not surprisingly,
given its liberal attitudes, >Mladina was also one of the few
Slovenian >publications to reprint the infamous caricatures >of
Muhammad. And, conversely, those who >displayed the greatest
"understanding" for the >violent Muslim protests those cartoons
caused >were also the ones who regularly expressed
their >concern for the fate of Christianity in
Europe. > >These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims
>with a difficult choice: the only political >force that does
not reduce them to second-class >citizens and allows them the space to
express >their religious identity are the "godless" >atheist
liberals, while those closest to their >religious social practice,
their Christian >mirror-image, are their greatest
political >enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only
real >allies are not those who first published the >caricatures
for shock value, but those who, in >support of the ideal of freedom of
_expression_, >reprinted them. > >While a true atheist has
no need to boost his >own stance by provoking believers with
>blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem >of the
Muhammad caricatures to one of respect >for other's beliefs. Respect
for other's beliefs >as the highest value can mean only one of
two >things: either we treat the other in a >patronizing way and
avoid hurting him in order >not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt
the >relativist stance of multiple "regimes of >truth,"
disqualifying as violent imposition any >clear insistence on
truth. > >What, however, about submitting Islam -
together >with all other religions - to a respectful, but >for
that reason no less ruthless, critical >analysis? This, and only this,
is the way to >show a true respect for Muslims: to treat
them >as serious adults responsible for their
beliefs. > >Slavoj Zizek, the international director of
the >Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the >author,
most recently, of "The Parallax
View." > > >_______________________________________________ >assam
mailing list >assam@assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing
list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
|