... but is there a scope of blasphemy in it? I don t know. but religion expect blind belief and not critical engagements.. as far as i know... may be i m wrong to assume it so. the hindu fanatics who murdered/killed/raped never ever think twice about their mission. they are blindly bound to a 'belief'. same can be seen in many other religions in various multitudes. even an egalitarian religion like Buddhism seems to be going in the way of other religions by imposing /demanding blind faith and adherance to certain scriptural "truths".. is con/textualised reading possible within religion? can one challenge The Book? in a broader philosophical sense this could be extnded to any book and the belief in it construct 'knoweledge'. but the context of religion demands faith.. belief, faith, knowledge, religion... scope for a nice discussion. expecting some interesting cues from phiosophers/psycologists/social scientists et al.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, salimtk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is belief antagonistic to critical engagement? what about Divine Ontology > we/some relenetlessly engage critically through out our lives? Problemizing > our own beliefs and our relationship with the Divine Spirit? the > con/textualized reading of religious scriptures in reference to the > social/worldly justice? > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Damodar, >> >> i agree with u. Belief in fact removes the critical understanding of any >> idea/theory and it paves way for "religious orthodoxy and fanaticism" to >> take over. Look how fast ramanan cought me with the word "belief". That is >> why i have to explain the way i used it. i wanted to address 'belief' the >> way it s been used. slighlty polemical as usual, u know that well. To make >> it clear i wanted to say I belive in Foucault than Sreeram. Prefer to use >> "Jai Foucault" than "jai sreeram"... i wanted to challenge belief with >> belief. The polemical articulation of all ideologies have its own victories >> and failures. so as this as well >> that polemical game apart, it would be suicidal if i really "belive" in >> foucault et al/ and not critically locate those theories wihithn my own >> questions of inquiry. >> 100% agree with u, >> >> thanks >> >> regards >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM, damodar prasad < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Renju, >>> >>> I am not sure how will you consider my following question. Anyway I will >>> risk asking it. >>> I have seen you use the word "belief" and "believe" in your postings >>> consistently. >>> My doubt is regarding the same. >>> For example, If I say I believe Bobby. This means I trust Booby because >>> of my personal understanding of not only his relation with me but also on >>> account of his positions/ideas etc. >>> There is a personal element to this "belief" and this trust is essential >>> in/for a relation and is not contractual. There are also contractual trust >>> as in case of entering into partnerships. >>> >>> But can we say the same in case of ideology or discourse? For eg: Can we >>> say I "believe" in Marx or Marxism. Does not this cancel out our critical >>> faculty to engage with thinkers Indian, Malayalee, French or any nation.. >>> >>> D.Prasad >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> i am proud of that culture which in every inch led the freedom >>>> movement against Brahminsm and hindu colonisation; which does not believe >>>> in >>>> Akhanda bharat and hindu rashtra; >>>> >>>> when i say belief in foucalt et al, it means that these >>>> human beings/scholars are more humanitarian and therefore can be "belived" >>>> than those 30000000 lakhs gods and goddesses.. >>>> i have no problm if u belive the way u belive in any Indian gods. >>>> >>>> for me that indian god can never be nandan nilekani or kalam or narayana >>>> murthy >>>> >>>> i would prefer to belive in M F Husain and his paintings than these >>>> unimaginative Hindutva pawns. this is my opinion, not belief. >>>> >>>> but i belive in one thing; That is the hindu colonisation process will >>>> see its end soon. *It *has to be.. This actually is a belief. And this >>>> belief can only create India for all sections of society. >>>> So debrahminise and dehinduise to become a human being!! This is my >>>> belief> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Ramanan KP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > pls read it as; >>>>> > >>>>> > I can't be proud of such a culture. so, i would like to belive >>>>> foucalt, >>>>> > hooks, marx, stuart hall et al. (but NOT the way postcolonialists >>>>> used it) >>>>> > >>>>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed class using a public tank not because they really believe that the water will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of losing their superiority of caste and of equality being established between the former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not becasue we believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human beings." - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
