C'da,
>*** That only proves the point that organized religion is little more than a political need.
DD & I already said that organized religions are a problem. I was talking about "individuals" here not an a la Robertson, or a Modi.
This is what I wrote:
>>I agree. But one can also "advance" some religion or the other, without being religious at >>all or being an atheist. They do so, because of some political expedience.
I suspect there are individuals, who tell us they are above all this, and yet they do promote some other religion while denigrating others (usually Hinduism). They go about it a round about way - because they usually harbor some other political objective.
>>For instance, IF I wanted to deport illegal B'deshis, one could well link it to a 'lungi kheda' >>agenda, when actually there may be none.
>*** What's the difference ?
I am surprised you don't see the difference. If I wanted to deport illegals, it would simply on THAT basis alone. I don't have a problem if B'deshis came to India with a visa and stay there legally. Its certainly NOT about what religion the immigrants belong to.
My interest would be for India (and Assam) would be based on preserving the territorial interests and also of the Assamese identity.
This would be synonmous to the aspirations of those who wish to preserve Assam's identity by separating Assam from India.
Of course, there is a whale lot of difference on how each wishes to achieve that goal.
I would opt for India/Assam strictly enforcing immigration laws, plugging loopholes, afford due process to potential deportees, treat them well, but deport them if they are indeed illegal.
I don't see the difference as far as the the goal of preserving Assamese identity is concerned. Do you THINK Assam would be better off when filled up with illegal B'deshis?
--Ram
On 3/16/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 2:09 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:C'da,>*** Not that I am about make a federal case out of it, but 'lungi-kheda' or 'Christian-hotwa' or >'Sikh-mora' or "Hindu-kota' can be pursued WITHOUT having any religious reason at all.I agree. But one can also "advance" some religion or the other, without being religious at all or being an atheist. They do so, because of some political expedience.
*** That only proves the point that organized religion is little more than a political need.
One can also "link" almost any political issue to perceived "religious biases".For instance, IF I wanted to deport illegal B'deshis, one could well link it to a 'lungi kheda' agenda, when actually there may be none.
*** What's the difference ?
>So Ram, if I were you, I would not hold up my atheism sympathies as an argument or proof >against nationalistic or ethnic or even cultural bigotries. Would you :-)?Hehehe! Bigotry/Chauvinisms exists among all of us.>Who amonst us has NO such bigotries?
*** Aha! The ol' 'they are all bad' argument' argument, ain't it? But no dice!Not ALL are equally bad .
Only some of us try to cloak it very cleverly, while the naive tell it as it is.
*** Heh-heh! The 'he is glibber than me' defense ? Again, nice try! But no cigar.
I think I belong to the naive group.
*** I was not attempting to label anyone.
And I really wasn't trying to put up an "atheistic front"
*** Did not suggest you were putting up a front Ram. 'Sympathy' was never synonymous with 'front'. Let us not fall into that damned English language trap now :-).
c-da
--Ram
On 3/16/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 12:54 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
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. :)
*** Not that I am about make a federal case out of it, but 'lungi-kheda' or 'Christian-hotwa' or 'Sikh-mora' or "Hindu-kota' can be pursued WITHOUT having any religious reason at all. In fact religiosity would be a deterrence against such pursuits, unless one uses ( I mean abuses) religion for entirely wrong reasons.
So Ram, if I were you, I would not hold up my atheism sympathies as an argument or proof against nationalistic or ethnic or even cultural bigotries. Would you :-)?
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
> [email protected]
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
