Deep Roots of Religious Orthodoxy

#42 by gowardhan1

it is quite some time ago I read iqbal’s reconstruction of religious thought in islam, it’s compilation of lectures he delivered mostly in madras India in 1930’s. basically he was saying muslim legislative assembly should have power to modify and change sharia laws. He admits subcontinent muslims being conservative may not allow it to happen HOW PROPHETIC !

Urstruly...
France Vs Sausi Arabia(/Nepal)

How is the theocratic Saudi Arabia equal to /better than the `militantly` secular France?
Some of the modern liberal ideals of the French state may have their origin in Christinity.
But the state incorporating these better ideals of religion has transcended it ( the religion). Now, surely you wouldn`t say that pre-revolution French society was better!

Isphahani # 40

I didn`t understand a word. Could you or someone else explain in simpler language? With a view to it being adopted, Iqbal must have advanced a clearer principle.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

choices are what we make troughout our lives and choices are what make us in our lives.

teshah

It wasn`t a question of understanding in the first place. It was and still is a question of choice. I showed you the way, you made your choice. It is just as simple.

28 by urstruly

Thank you dear for replying to my post at 24 but I am sorry to say that you have made the confusion about `harram` and `hallal` worse confounded. You mean `harram` has double rather contradictory meanings in Arabic. You say harram means both `forbidden` and `sacred` in Arabic lexicon. Does it make any sense? One can treat pork and wine both forbidden and sacred. You as a human being are `harram`. Should I take you as `sacred` or `forbidden`. I would try to explain this confusion by true a anecdote;-

I have a cousin who is a fouji and an M.A. in Islamiat. He is in the habit of giving Islamic connotatio to all his actions. Once he came to my house and after having a lunch with me took leave to go to his mess. I asked him why going to mess when you have just taken lunch with me. He said, ``I shall go and eat there also as if I don`t eat my lunch there they would throw it to the crows and the crow being a harram bird it will bring `gunnah` on me``. But I said,``Dear brother, but you are yourself a `harram` animal like a crow and pig``. All his Islamc learning failed to find a cogent answer to my observation.

Mr. urstruly it is not that simple a question as you think. Moulana marhoom Amin Ahsan Islahi in his Tafseer `Tadabrulquran` has tried to explain `harram` as a ` thing tabooed` or simply a thing `having a religious significance` as we say in Punjabi `Eh cheez bhaari ae`.

I am sorry you ascribed some ulterior motives to my genuine search for knowledge and truth but I am not a bit wiser what you or the Moulana said.

``Yet religions do change with the passage of time; such changes may not be substantial still they are significant enough to undermine the religious foundation even ever so slightly.``


The Ultimate Truth does not change over time or over space. It manifests itself in different forms. The form is not the Truth.

If a religion speaks to the Truth, it will not be undermined by even the most radical change. If it speaks to a form of the Truth, it will be undermined by even the smallest modification of it.

---

God lets us create our own world.

Religion can provide excellent UNIFORM moral foundation if everyone in the country follows same religion. State laws can take over where scope of morals ends. Morals are like an operating system and state laws are various business applications which use the foundational software. Thus, western countries can interoperate very easily because their operating system is Christianity but business and other social laws can differ and no one has any issues. Arab countries can interoperate with each other easily and have different political systems since underlying moral foundation is Islam.
In modern world, this poses challenges for deeply religious people brought up in one religion and need to live in another country for whatever reasons. IMHO (with limited understanding of real Islam), this poses even bigger problems for Muslims since their religion goes beyond good moral foundation to a set of state governance and economic laws. Now, if you are outside Muslim dominated country, how can you be a perfect Muslim and model citizen?
I guess what I am saying is that need for global interconnectivity of ideas and businesses, leaving aside physical migration, is going to force a uniform moral rules upon all those who want to interconnect/interact. People in Saudi Arabia or Sweden may decide when or how to interact with rest of the world, what choices, for example, Indians in USA or Muslims in India have other than to mainstream?

gowardhan
he wrote a book ``reconstruction of islamic thought``, but I havent read it.

hindvi, teshah, amit, urstruly, Isphahani

Iqbal attempted the thesis that Islam was not a static moral ideology. Does anyone know his approach to seeing dynamism in Islam?

#30 by Urstruly

ok with the discipline, great that its helping you, except i am worried about getting killed, and cant convince you by argument (the discipline comes in the way).

Re:urstruly#27

I have associated with Chinese people for a number of years and have seen first hand that they have almost no religious fervour. Most of them consider Confuciansim and Taoism as philosophies rather than full-blown religions. Buddhism is there to some extent and Islam is only in one province. By and large, the chinese are not a very religious people unlike say hindus and muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

In any case, thanks for an interesting debate. Our difference is that you consider religion to be a central aspect of life i.e. without it, we would become degenerate savages. I consider religion to be a useful guide to remind us what we should realize from our common sense and lead a good life. Perhaps it is because I have lived in secular societies all my life where religion is your personal matter whereas you have obviously had a different upbringing.

hindvi

I also used to be repulsed by the idea of going to school when my mother used to wake me up at 5:30 am in the chilling December mornings. Whether I liked it or not, that discipline was beneficial to me. Similarly, being a Muslim, like a benevolent mother, it is incumbent upon us to convince others that a certain discipline and certain decourum is necessary if human race is to progress and achieve salvation. Of course, the message puts many out of their comfort zones, but we have to do our job selflessly and compassionately.

As far as the issues of crimes and punishments, and genesis and evolution of Islamic jurisprudence and law is concerned, we can have a separate discussion on these issues where the format of discussion conforms and falls with in the realm of these sciences and not generalities.

But urstruly the problem is islam is static in its morality, you cant change a word of the Quran, where as humans are evolutionary beings, our morale sense of today is repulsed by punishments such as stoning to death, amputation, or taking of war booty in the form of women or slaves.

teshah

I did not quite understood your point. It looks like that you are angry and frustrated on some other issue which is unrelated to topic under discussion and venting your frustration here. There is a punjabi proverb that describes the situation in these words ``raundi yaaraaN nu lay lay ke naaN bharaawaN da``. Anyway I would like to address some of your points.

Islam as a religion instills a certain discipline in its adherents and demands a certain decourum to show that they are disciplined. For that Islam has put forward certain guidelines that Muslims must follow to show that they obey the demand for this discipline. These guidelines are a set of dos and donts. In religious lexicon they are divided into two braod catagories Halal i.e. allowed and Haram i.e. forbidden. Not only that but Islam also elaborates in detail as to what will be the consequences as a reward if we follow the Halal ways and a punishment if we chose to go astray with the Haram way. Islam is a unique religion that it does not classify actions as good or bad or natural or un-natural. In Islam every action no matter how dispecable, is natural. Islam does not stipulate that man is genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. A man is not born a sinner. On the other hand Islam talks about the choice. Islam shows what is ``allowed`` and what is ``forbidden`` and leaves the choice upon us. We make choices on every step of the way in our lives, everyday, every moment, some willingly, some unknowingly, and some under compulsion. On the Day of Judgment those choices that we made in our lives will be evluated and we will be rewarded or punished accordingly.

The word ``Haram`` in Arabic lexicon has more than one meanings. One meaning as I discussed above is ``forbidden``, the other meaning is ``sacred``. The phrase ``Masjid al Haram`` thus means `the sacred mosque` and not `forbidden mosque`, which is usually referred to as Kaaba in Mecca. The month of Ramadan is also Haram meaning that moth of Ramadan is sacred. On the other hand when we use the word haram in the context of other person`s wife saying that `she is haram for you` means that she is `forbidden for you.

I hope that helps.

amit

The basic premis of your thesis is argumentatively and factually wrong. You have totally ignored the fact that there is not one but five major religions that have shaped the moral structure of contemporary china over the century.

Taoism
Confucianism
Buddhism
Islam
Falon Dafa

In addition to the above Christianity has been the recent introduction.

As a matter of fact Taoism and Confucianism has enjoyed the ststus of state religions over several centuries. Three out of the above five religions are indigeous. There is some anecdotal evidence that Holy Prophet (pbuh) knew about the Confucian ideology and one of the reasons behind his advised to his followers, that in pursuit of knowledge even if they have to go to China then they must, was becuse of his familiariaty with Confucianism.

Since rest of your post is based on this false premis I will ignore it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mr. Gill

Dilemma? Hardly.

So far, through my various posts below i have tried to make these three points.

1. The ``religious orthodoxy`` and the ``rational-humanist orthodoxy`` are mirror image of each other - equal but opposite. In their constitution both of them are identical to each other. If one is driven by the ``belief`` in presence or existence of a dogmatic entity then the other is driven by the ``belief`` in the non-existence of a dogmatic entity. Neither can prove their case conclusively and yet both are hardcore ``believers`` in their respective dogmas. So my question was, why one is better than they other.

2. The second point that I have tried to make is that each and every moral value that rationalist-humanists today try to uphold as their own is actually borrowed from a dogma based religious system of values. And becuse of their very own make-up, construction and constitution ratinalist-humanists CANNOT create a new set of values. This is further explained in point 3.

3. Any system of values that rationalist-humanists come up with is as strong as a house of cards. Only one word ``why`` can slip the rug from under any system of values that is based on rationalist-humanist approach. The examples were given in my previous posts.

urstruly

So urstruly is mullah inside. He says that it was Islam which banned drinking of liquor and eating of pork. Actually in shariah terminology these things have been declared `Harram` in Islam. At least the mullah say so. But my question is what is meant by `Harram` as the human being itself is harram, masjid is harram, a month is harram but a married woman when taken as a spoil is `Hallal`. I am confused to this day as I find no word or concept of the nature of Hallal and Harram in any language other than Arabic. That is why perhaps that Qurani Allah says that He conveys his message in the national language of the people for which it is meant- to Israilies, in Ibrani, to Arabs, in Arabic and to Punjabies in....? Will somebody guide me.

Re:#18

Urstruly

Not every society that didn`t create or embrace a major world religion has become degenerate. Look at China. They did not have and still do not have much of organized religion. Yet they are a conservative society with strong family values. Why is that so? Because you commit a crime, you get punished, no matter who you are or what your status is. People have the fear that they will suffer consequences for non-compliance. On the other hand, the presence of religious fervor is not a guarantee of ``good`` behavior. Take Pakistan for example. On the sexual side, maybe the Pakistanis are conservative, although I am not so sure. But look at the crime rate, especially in your urban areas. If you take any Pakistani newspaper, you read about gang-rapes, carjackings, robberies you name it. A society that has such strong religious values relative to other societies should be in a much better shape. So what gives? There is a lot of moralistic preaching in Pakistan where everyone quotes the Quran and the hadiths, but it is really the lack of an enforceable legal framework where bad behavior gets statutory punishment and the law is applied uniformly to all. Don`t misunderstand me. It is not a failure of religion, rather it is the failure to recognize that you need more than just religion to have a better society.

A particular society can be a success or a failure, just as a particular individual can be a success or a failure. The particular state of a society depends on the ability of its people to recognize what is functional and setup a proper legal framework to enforce that. Religion can aid in that, but it cannot replace it.

One of my posts failed to appear. In it, I had corrected the spelling of the wrongly spelt word ``germain``. The correct spelling is ``germane``.

Mohammad Gill

There is another misspelling. The word should be read ``manifestly`` and not ``manifestl``. Sorry for these lapses.

Mohammad Gill

Urstruly:

I do not understand your dilemma. I am sure you`ll be able to sort it out yourself. In my article I had drawn attention to a few instances which are quoted from the Bible which the Christians believe is the ``word of God``. Those particular instances are rationally inconsistent so much so that a retired bishop discarded them. I tried to make a point that the religions are not divine (my extension; you`ll probably disagree with me which is fine); they are the products of the human cultures. Therefore they are not eternal and universal. They can be modified and need to be reinterpretted and tweaked from time to time according to the needs of a given time period.

If one takes one step at a time, there is hope that one can avoid confusion. It is indeed very difficult to abandon the beliefs, howsoever irrational they may be, with which one grew up. I do not say that rationalism is the `silver bullet`. My point is why do we have to believe in certain propositions which are manifestl and demonstrably wrong?

Coming back to the moral argument; non-believers are not necessarily immoral if lack of faith is not considered immoral. Please think over it.

I liked your posts on this article; particularly your style which is quite germain. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill 10, vertex 16

Whenever, I wear my rationalist`s hat, I become a relativist. I can prove anything and everything right or if I want in the next breath I can prove it wrong. Which tells me that when I become a rationalist I lose a very important thing called the ``moral compass``. Without a moral compass we are nothing but a cork flaoting on the surface of ocean with no direction and no purpose. The only purpose is the survival of my self as an organism. If my survival depends on the survival of others then fine, and if my survival depends on destruction of others then so be it.

That moral compass can only come from a Guide.

amit

I respectfully disagree with your thesis. What you are saying is as hypothetical as the question of chicken or egg is. In the past it has not happened but now when the hold of religion is weakening in various societies it has started happening i.e. societies are codifying themselves only on one principle, which is the survival of the organism. Human beings are organisms now. Thanks a lot.

Take for example, the situation of Arabian society, when Islam banned the liquor. If your thesis were true, then there should have been a majority of society who subscribed to the idea that liquor was injurious to individual and to the society. But on the contrary when Islam imposed the prohibition, imbibing was a mainstream trait. Even some of the companions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) are known to have imbibed. In a society which was so permissive of alcohol, where can religion pick up the ``value`` that liquor should be prohibited. But instead Islam imposed the prohibition at once telling that when you imbibe you cannot differentiate between your mother and a whore. Similarly, the Arabian society at the time was a sexually permiscous and permissive society. According to one Arab custom that existed at the time the affluent men used to send their wives to live with beautiful men so that they could have beautiful children. I don`t see the `organism`s`` desire here to propagate one`s gene. Marrying one`s mother after the death of one`s father was also a mainstream practice. Not to mention the cutome of female infanticide and having harems of women and women having harem of men was also custom. In that society how can a religion pick up a value to impose such a strict decorum between the genders as we know it today. Therefore, in essence the genesis of a religious code is inherently different in nature as compared to the genesis of secular based code.

``This then begs the question why one system is `wrong` and other is `right`.``

Well, let`s try to understand the ``other`` side...

Rational and reasonable are two different things, I guess...with reason you can presume a set of given truths, and work everythign else from there. You can start with things like the golden rule ``do unto others...``, and go from there, for example. Not because this ``truth`` is evident from nature...but because we said so...

So, so-called non-belivers may in fact think very much like belivers in the end...so putting us down because we believe in the unseen is a bit unfair...hell, I see no inherent goodness in Man...I only believe this is the ultimate truth becaues God told me so...(not personally, of course)....otherwise I tend to think mankind is one asshole of a species on average...statistically speakin` of course... ;-)

We only become manageble once we place authority outside of our direct hands and into something abstract...like a ``system` or ``instituion``...and guide ourselves by some external principles. It`s always about faith beyond the self...I guess....

Re:urstruly#15

A legal framework is more than just codifying ethical/moral values, although it might be partially inspired from that. A legal framework codifies what is necessary from a functional perspective, in order that a society will survive and for that matter, our species will survive. All societies need to create a legal framework to ensure smooth functioning where people can survive and prosper. Why do people want to survive and prosper? Because it is in our genes to do so, otherwise we wouldn`t have evolved to this point. Modern religions have been around for only a few thousand years, but humans have been around for 50,000 years. Without modern religions around in the first 47000 years, how did humans survive and prosper without committing mass murder or other destructive activities?

Marriage is not just a religious concept, it is a very functional concept, because it ensures proper procreation of the species. Without marriage, men may not take care of offspring since they are not sure if it is their own, which endangers the survival of the offspring (at least in the past, human females did not have the means to take care of children by themselves). With marriage, a man is reasonably sure that it is his own genes that are getting passed on and surviving. Hence he will take care of the woman and the family. Even if you take the most remote tribal society that had no contact with the external world, you will find the concept of marriage. Now religion came up and adopted this functional concept and made it a religious obligation to strengthen the argument further i.e. God wants you to be monogamous and raise your family. Of course, in the modern times, when a woman can survive on her own, raise children by herself, obviously the functional need of a construct like marriage is diminishing. That is why, people are questioning it and arguing for same sex marriages etc. The functional need for marriage is lesser now given the success of our species. Hence the moral value of marriage is also diminishing.

Similary Islam prohibits eating pork. This is obviously a functional concept, because pigs used to carry all kinds of diseases, hookworms etc. in the past. If you ate pork, you were likely to fall seriously sick or even die. Hence it was a functional thing to avoid pork. Then Judaism and later Islam adopted this functional concept and created a religious concept i.e. God doesn`t want you to eat pork.

So my argument is that functionality came first, because as a species, with our physical limitations, we couldn`t have survived without basic functional concepts. This functionality drives legality and strongly influences morality (of course, there is more to morality based on spiritual needs). Secularism derives its basis from legality that depends on functionality to ensure proper functioning of society and survival of our species. Religion also derives a large amount of its basis from functionality, rather than the opposite. Orthodox people believe that all functionality came BECAUSE of relgious values i.e. religion taught us right from wrong. Actually we always knew what was right in order to survive as a species and it is religion that adopted that knowledge to provide divine sanction and ensure compliance by everyone.

amit & vertex

amit`s argument is invalid because in the world where we live in the legal framework exists because a set of moral values demands it. In other words legal framework only codifies a set of values. It doesn`t work the other way around that we have moral values because a legal framework demands it. Take for example, marriage. Marriage is an ethical and religious value that has been codified into a legal framework. The people who are questioning the institution of marriage argue that since marriage is a religious value and since in a secular society there is no place for a legal framework that is derived from a religious value therefore state has no authority to interfere in it. Extending this argument they further question what is wrong between the union of same gender partners. legally their point is valid but our moral values do not accept that. Similarly, another recent case of `pledge of allegiance` where American people pledge there allegiance to `one nation under God`. Legally, the circuit courts decision, that this pledge is unconstitutional since a secular polity cannot pledge its allegiance to dogmatic figure, is correct. But our moral values are not ready to accept that. The congress and senate were quick to pass legislation to overturn the circuit courts decision. Now what we have here - a secular polity where people pledge their allegiance to God. But it is anyone`s guess that such people are on losing ground. What was their moral value yesterday is not today. I don`t see where can we draw a limit. If yesterday child marriage was perfectly legal, today it is not, and tomorrow, incest will be legal (as it already is in several states). Yesterday suicide was illegal today it is legal. Once prostitution was frowned upon and today pension and retirement benefits are being demanded for sex workers. These people already lost in Europe because in its very ideology secularism is anti-religion; its is an anathema to the very notion of dogma. Seculeism is not accomodative as one is usually lead to believe. It is absolutely exclusive. In the name of fairness and justice, thus, for a rationalist, secularism or religious orthodoxy should be mirror image of each other - where everything is equal but opposite. This then begs the question why one system is `wrong` and other is `right`.

No species on the face of the earth likes to self distruct to the point of extinction. As immune system shows, species try their best to survive by creating defensive mechanism. It requires sefishness of the genes of each species to create defensive mechanisms and survival instincts. The mass murders, holocaust or decimation of native American population do not fall in this category becasue destruction was not against another species and human existence was not at stake.

All through the evolution of our species, we have created certain value sytems out of instinct for the survival. We are not born sinners but born survivors. Whatever helps us survive better is adopted in value system (morals) at every stage of our existence. The ten commandments existed and practiced long before Moses went up the hill. All religion did was to attribute them as god`s order or commandments. You see neither god nor religions are needed to live by certain set of values which help us survive batter as species. For example the role of mother has always been very important due to the long infancy childhood periods. No culture, religion or people have thrown them out after birth of babies. It just does not make sense.

Neither god nor religions is necessary for survival, which means that living by certain non-destructive value system. People can associate on these value systems, develop bonding, creating social constructs to further strengthening bonds such as marriage, inheritance, culture, nations, race, caste or an organization.

Where does spirituality, christianity or islam fit in it? Religions are not innovative beyond innovating something like god from thin air. In computer terminology, it is more like creating a folder in a world of files. Existing files are put in the folder with some spicing up so that people who wish to read these files go through the folder route only. Because a file can be opened as easily and actually more quickly, the party of folder has been making all kind of myths, fears, rewards, threads, murders, bribes and plain old marketing called proselytizing. Why do one has to look into first Jesus teachings, then Quran than 5 hadith, then 2 out of 5 hadith deemed more authentic, then local priest or mullah if loving a child is the purpose. Just open the file created by basic human goodness necessary and complementary to survival instincts of homosapiens-sapiens?

It is totally bizarre to make a case that without spirituality, religions and god, world would be a terrible place to live for human beings with rampant crimes without the fear of retribution. Or that we would be still living in the stone age or any less developed than today.

One of the technique for attracting and keeping in check the people now used to opening file through folder route is posthomous rewards becasue by 3000 years ago, human species was smart enough to account the rewards if there were any in this lifetime. As human became more and more aware of the zero reward in this life except statistical prbabilities (as hamidm2 post indicated), more and more stress needed for afterlife rewards. That is why, Islam promised more in finer details than Christianity and Judaism. It is rather modern that afterlife rewards started losing importance becasue the life as soul (separated from organic human body) became more and more a myth.

So what can a folder do? They can provide services, sales, 2-for-1 sales and using some of the earnings to create some rewards for the faithfuls in the forms of schools, hospitals, charities etc. As a last resort, they can refer to spirituality as a necessity (again without any evidence or proof) and then link spirituality file to the folder.

So the bottomline is that collating and creating folder is gone too far, when everything necessary for a good moral life is present in the form of files since ages. Additionally files can be edited easily, as the time changes, compared to folders.

Urstruly,

You`re right in the sense that those who believe in good without God are in fact deviating from the emperical style thinking and thinking much more in tune with those who are believers.

Any talk of good or bad may not be related to God, but it is in fact a similar discussion.

Orthodoxy is an obssessive compulsive disease (OCD) -- more limbic than cerebral -- should be treatable by psychotropic drugs....

So as usual we are bogged down by the question `What is good and what is bad or what is moral and what is immoral`. I think culture is more important than religion in determining good or bad. For example, in Pakistani culture morality is confined to sex only which is not an issue at all in the west. The burning issue today in Pakistan is Karo kari - killing of rebellious women for shame (gheirat). People are least concerned whether it is allowed in Islam or not. It is in any case a matter of life and death for them. Even prophets could not change the culture of a given society. Again, Islam says interest or usuary means war against Allah and his Prophet but who cares. They have the rituals like `Namaz`, `Umra`, `Haj` etc. to purify them and ensure heaven with hoories for them.

The moral argument for the existence of God has been thoroughly discussed by numerous philosophers. It has its own weaknesses. If goodness is the creation of God then who is responsible for the creation of evil, disease and sickness? As a matter of fact the prevalence of evil in the world substantially weakens the argument for the existence of God. To illustrate my point, I produce in the following an extract from Bertrand Russell`s essay: Why I am not a Christian?

``One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God`s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God`s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God`s fiat, because God`s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it. ``

Belief in God is a maatter of faith with the majority of the believers. As I said in my essay there will always be millions of people who`ll believe in God. The intent of my essay was to show that the traditional faith in Christianity and many other religions has become outdated. These religions need to be reinterpretted and brought in line with the modern knowledge and experience. Many rationalists will continue believing that such an exercise is futile and waste of time.

Mohammad Gill

#1, Hamidm2: Good work!
#2, Kaurasach: Belief in personal God helps outlast adversity.
#3, Sameejb: No religious discussion, this included can be logical.
#5,teshah: Science is inching towards the understanding of life. Did you see 4-hour series on life by NOVA?
#6,_Homer: What is the harm in trying to see interconnections?
#7,urstruly: Yes, God and goodness have no connection.
#8,amit: Good. Agree but boring!

Re:#7
Urstruly, you are assuming that good behavior stems primarily from a moral framework. There is also a legal framework that a society sets up to regulate behavior in order to sustain and prosper as a society. Anyone not respecting that gets punished such as getting fined or imprisoned. The objective of a legal framework is not just imposing morality but ensuring the smooth functioning of society. For e.g. if people have conflicts and start killing each other, life would come to a standstill. Hence people are forbidden to do some things because the alternative is to face punishment. Secular societies believe that such a legal framework is sufficient to regulate behavior. Orthodox societies do not belive in that.

In some societies, the legal framework is itself based on religious underpinnings such as Shariah or even the US constitution which has its roots in Judeo-Christian values. If a case is made that the purpose of religion is to inspire good behavior, I have no argument against that. However, it is not necessary that the only way to accomplish ``good`` behavior is via religious brain-washing. Setting up an enforceable legal framework should be good enough.

I think the main driving force, the prime mover behind the `reason` is the word `why`. So the question is can morality based on reason replace morality based on religion. In other words the pertinent question that one must look into is : Can we be good without God? ``sure we can`` an anthusisatic rationalist would say. But I would tell him - not so fast. As the word `why` is the raison d`etre of reason yet the same word `why` is the anathema of reason as well. For example consider theis dialogue:

``I want to kill this person``

``why?``

``because he annoys me``

``but killing a person is wrong``

``why?``

``because hurting someone is wrong``

``why?``

``because if you will hurt someone, someone else may hurt you as well``

``what if I hurt someone and don`t let someone else hurt me, would that be ok then?``

``we don`t live in a jungle``

``are you sure?``

So here goes the whole morality, which was based on reason, down the drain. No one can really answer the question why is it wrong to hurt someone. How is it different if I rape a woman or just insert my finger in her mouth. By way of reason both acts are same. Apart from these hypothetical examples today we face the real life dilemmas when it comes to issues of marriage, homosexuality, child sex, child pornography, and incest. The reason asks ``why they are wrong?`` and reason fails to answer. Theoretically, if we all become absolute rationalists (like Mr. Spock for example) would there be any place for morality in this world. Emotionality is an integral part of morality whereas reason is an anathema to emotionality - e.g an act of rape or sodomy from rational point of view is nothing but an interaction of meat with other meat or intermingling of fluids and the emotional stigmatization that is attached to these acts have no place in the world based on rational thinking.

Ask this question again ``Can we be good without God?`` the honest answer is the right answer.

Another article forcing the lessons learned from Christianity on to Islam and other religions. I was afraid of this; the ignorant virus prevalent in the America is now airborne. Maybe it has something to with the soil or the food, I don’t know but seriously people need to start thinking for themselves.

Christianity is not Islam nor is Christianity other religions. So lessons learnt from Christianity can stay with Christianity no need to force fit the circle in the square. Oh and when talking about Islam it is a good idea to actually learn a little about it.

Who is this author anyway?

Regards
Homer

A good excercise in `ratio-cracy`, but it is hardly to have any impinge on theocracy because, perhaps, the life is not a rational existence. Theocracy has its inherent contradictions no doubt but these very contradictions provide a fuel for its bullshit function which is the essence and driving force for human life. The Qurani Allah says, ``Be hard against the disbelievers and meciful among yourself``. This provides the man the licence to be mrciless and to have free play to his inherent barbarism. So Judaic God forgives murder by Moses because the victim is not Israili but an Egyption thus breaking his own law about invioable sanctity of human rights (Haqooqulibaad). Ghalib , the Aarif, says: -

Latafat beqasafat jalwa peida kar naheen sakti
chaman zangaar he aaina-e-bade bahaari ka

As I understand, it means that contradiction or dialectics is the sine qua non for any `jalwa` or existence. We will have to believe in Iblees as a complement of Allah. Rest later on.

sameer,

Yarr, give it a rest. The author has clearly stated spirituality in the conclusion, and did not refer explicilty to God, although it is obvious the author is trying to draw a connection between thestic faiths. Anyhoo, concentrating on the `self` for the sake of `englitenment` is as non-worldly as God. One is a self-centered spirituality, the other selfless.

[At the same time, spirituality is almost a human instinct. Science cannot be a substitute for religion because religion satisfies the spiritual needs of the humankind. Majority of the people will always believe in one form or the other of religion. ]

How did you conclude this from your article, since you put this sentence in the conclusion?

Spirituality, whatever it is, does not depend on religion or god(s). People contemplate their spirituaity by concentrating on any object, number, name or most of all, self. For example Zen Buddhism hardly cares about Buddha and ignores god altogether. That has made it actually most popular among highly educated and accomplished individuals who are willing to convert.

Why do rewards, redemptions and salvation are promised mostly after death? Reminds me of some unknown third rate poet who said: ``merna paRay agar tou nijat hae kaisi?``

normally, i don`t like to cut n` paste, but i thought this might help with the discussion:


carlin says: ........... ``When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there`s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever `til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He`s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can`t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you`d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would`ve been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say ``this guy``, because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he`s at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn`t give a shit. Doesn`t give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn`t give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can`t see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I`m big on that. If I can see something, I don`t know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we`re not setting people on fire simply because they don`t agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There`s no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don`t have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I`m unworthy. Doesn`t tell me I`m a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn`t said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don`t pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn`t presume on our friendship. It`s not polite.

I`ve often thought people treat God rather rudely, don`t you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It`s not nice. And it`s no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you`d really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you`d have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn`t in God`s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn`t it seem a little arrogant? It`s a Divine Plan. What`s the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here`s something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren`t answered. What do you say? ``Well, it`s God`s will.`` ``Thy Will Be Done.`` Fine, but if it`s God`s will, and He`s going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn`t you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It`s all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don`t pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he`s a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn`t fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It`s amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I`ve been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don`t. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit`s foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat`s testicles, it`s all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that`s a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I`m sure you`ll like that. Then there`s Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn`t care for, by the way. And finally, I`ve always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? ``All the king`s horses and all the king`s men couldn`t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.`` That`s because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I`m gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody`s okay? All right, tell you what, I`ll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I`ve got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I`m blind. I`m blind, oh, now I`m okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts