It is because 'not to believe in God' is also a
beleif.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:14
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Defenders of the
Faith -NYT Op ed
Dear Barua,
>A Buddhist however is neither
a believer nor an atheist.
What does that mean? Doesn't seem
to go along with the other declarations. If Buddhists "believe" or "not
believe" in God then how can they also be neither a believer or an atheist
(non believer)?
--Ram
On 3/16/06, Rajen
Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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.
----- 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
|