Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

Nadeem nice work ...awesome man .....
and u`ve won a gift hamper with some Pans having katha and chunna
what u have to do chew those pans write intresting articles n spit pan others main gate .
keep posting intresting things and soon u get a sponsership by Papu Pan Shop courtesy of Bahi jan panshop.

#118 by Urstruly,

Interesting discussion. After successful induction of gay marriage into `values`, `human rights`, `freedom of choice` etc., this is next for the same arguments. And why not?

A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.



Good luck :)

Bulleya and anil ji, even today, Islam does not have `institutions` like the Catholic Church, or a priestly class. Mullas surely are no institutions (particularly in the Sunni world and urban areas). And madrassas don`t determine and constrain public life in the manner we usually think of institutions.

So how do you see Islam becoming an institutional religion, or a large victim of institutionalization?

Dost Mittar writes: [On the other hand, Bush never used the word ``crusade`` after he was told of the negative connotation of that term in the Islamic word.]

Dost sahib, that just proves that Bush and the regime he represents are media savvy, whereas mullahs are not.

Bush can unleash circumstances that result in the deaths of 700,000 people, yet he is sophisticated enough to not use rash words like ``crusade``. Osama however, who has allegedly killed only 3000 people, is unrefined in his use of media and habitually uses words like ``holy war``. Yet it is Osama and the religion he belongs to that gets the pouncing from enlightened folks like dost mittar.

Ariel Sharon, that butcher who is responsible for the killings of thousands of Palestinians, was media savvy enough to use the word ``peace`` a few dozen times each time he made an appearance on media. Hamas on the other hand, which has killed far fewer israelies, is unrefined and uses extreme words in its language. And so it is Hamas that is branded as an extremist organization, while Sharon is called the “man of peace”.

Henry Kissinger, who was in the top decision making echelons of Washington power when US killed 2-3 million Vietnamese using every lethal means possible (agent orange etc), receives Noble peace prize. Yet Saddam Hussein, who even by the wildest estimates was guilty of far less, is labeled as ``butcher`` and is hanged.

So it is quite clear that the side that is doing the most killings are more media savvy also. As I have come to learn in life, it is not what you do, it is how you explain it that makes all the difference. Indeed, perception is much more potent a force than reality.

Anil #126: ``When that boundary is crossed into institutional religion even at personal level things like confusion and fear may set in to be exploited by people trying to create, build or maintain the institutions.``

I agree with this. This is one boat I am definitely on. I am totally against institutionalised religion. I am totally against religious bureacracy. In fact, I am totally against the Church (not to mean Christianity here, but institutionalized religious hierarchies).

Infact, one of the reasons for the decay of Islam is that it, as a religion which eliminated institutionalized religions as its founding concept, has, ironically, now become a large victim of it.

One of the items which has attracted me to Islam is that it does not recognize instituitonalized religions, hierarchies, scholars etc.

Dost-mittar #127: ``Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs?``

Yes, this is exactly what secularism is. I am recognizing that. What I am highlighting is the fact that this is not practiced anywhere completely. And now that there is a movement towards practicing it completely, it is resulting in an uncomfortable situation for people who like secularism, but only upto where it does not break their personal, ``ethical`` boundaries.

Marraige sits at the center of the above debate. It is the basis of govt legislation and social setup in all societies. I hope you agree that marraige is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties.

Now, since marriage is a religious concept, how can the govt. legislate on it? How is legislating on marraige any different than legislating on whether everyone should go to a mosque, temple or church? If the majority population thinks everyone should go to a church, should that be a law? If they majority population thinks only men and women should be in marraige, should that be a law?

One can, thus oppose gay marraige in their personal life, but how can they oppose it in public life, under secularism? The obviously cannot. The fact that people have been able to do so, through votes etc. is a clear indication that the church has been mixed with the state, due to the personal religious beliefs of people.

The basis of any legal system in the world (at least the secular world) is not the ethical beliefs of a majority of the people. It is the protection of the rights of an individual, i.e. if an individual or two are doing something that is not impacting anyone else, they cannot be discriminated against and have to be treated equally.

So, first and foremost, marraige - a religious concept - should never even be discussed in the public legal discourse. The state should have nothing to do with it in the public space. It should be indifferent to it. However, if it is hell-bent on legislating on it, then, in a secular society, it has to recognize all unions, of any type, as legal and equal. Between man and woman, man and man, man and five men, women and ten women, women and ten men, etc. Using the criteria that, marriage is personal business. Not public business. As long as all parties are consenting, in a secular society, the state should have no interference in it.

Infact, other than religion, name one thing that defines a union between man and man to be unethical? Under what basis is it unethical? If two men get married and are not bothering you, why is it unethical to you?

tahmed32#123:

I agree that Kant`s categorical imperative can serve as a moral compass for most purposes. [and a belated thanks for welcoming me back:)]

bulleya#125:

``The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........``

Far from it. Being secular, in my opinion, has nothing to do with whether one sees things in black and white or otherwise. Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs? To the extent that the societal values are influenced by the ethical values of the dominant religion, those values may be reflected in the societal laws also.

As I said earlier, there is no contradiction in opposing Gay marriages and being secular. You might be confusing between Canada`s Charter of Rights and the secular position. Yes, the Canadian courts have upheld Gay marriages as a fundamental right, but that is an interpretation of the Canadian constitution. The Canadian Prime Minister and most of the MPs that supported Gay Marriages are, in fact, quite religious people, the PM of that time being a practising Catholic. I believe that these marriages are illegal in most of the U.S, except in a few places like the Massachusetts. And despite the power of the Religious Right in the US, if the majority of Americans want to support Gay marriages, they too can go the Massachusetts way.

You may be right about religion; if the religion has prescribed everything in black and white, than a theological state would have fewer degrees of freedom in deciding what is right and what is wrong. But if a religion does not think of itself as immutable, then even religious people can change its values; for example the Church of England considered slavery to be okay two hundred years ago but is now thinking of giving reparation to the descendants of slaves.

Re: # 102

Kaalchakra:

My questions to Romair intend to show a boundary between personal religion and institutional religon. When that boundary is crossed into institutional religion even at personal level things like confusion and fear may set in to be exploited by people trying to create, build or maintain the institutions.

Dost-mittar #116: ``Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?``

This is a question you would need to answer before I. For the simple reason that you seem to have found the answers, while I am still searching for them. There is, however, an even more important question:

What is the basis of ethics? Why is something correct and something incorrect? Why do you think gay marraige is wrong? And if you do think it is wrong, what right do you have to enforce your views on others?

The whole purpose and basis behind secularism was to ensure that a majority was unable to enforce its religious (and its ethical views) onto minorities. This worked fine, as long as the minority kept quite. However, what happens if the minority speaks out? UK was a secular state, when it virtually banned the marriage of, ``Englishmen`` to native Indians in the late 1700s. The children of such marraige were considered second-rate by the govt. One could justify that also.

If one starts using the majority definition of ethics, as you are doing, then basically, you end up violating secularism. This is the contradiction I was talking about. This is the contradiction that the western socieities are coming to terms with. It is the slow unravelling of secularism, either towards religion or athiesm (or lets say less and less religion in personal life).

The above is the contradiction of secularism. While the contradiction of religion/shariah is that whose interpretation of sharia should one agree to (along with, which religion is the correct religion).

The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........

Re #113 by bulleya on March 27, 2007 12:47pm PT
``There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into. ``

Are you as dumb and simple as you write? What you see is what you get? (WYSWYG)
Why do you simplify everything to your level of understanding and make a fool
of yourself? Why dont you ever think that there maybe more to this world
than your puny mind can grasp. About gay issue being socially ethical or
not you can easily see both the view points. Some peope would think of
traditional marriage as an institution providing stable, secure environment for the future
generationas and consider it sacrosanct and anything affecting it as socailly
unethical just like any other crime that can disrupt socail fabric. Are you too
into yourself that you can see beyond your nose?

Dost Mittar: I think what you are saying is that values are driven by social need. Thus, your example of the beef prohibition in hinduism being driven by the social need to maintain herds of cattle. Indeed, chinese religions are far more focussed on social relations (respect for elders and so forth) than infernal/blissful visions of the next world. Similarly, it is clear that things like physical courage are so highly valued in human society because of the need for security.

This brings me back to the point I keep repeating: the importance of seeing things the way they are (not the way we would like to believe they are) and of using one`s common sense. A moral (or normative) framework built on this solid foundation would then require only keeping in mind the following phrase: treat others as you would have them treat you (this phrase is of course stated more elegantly and completely in Immanuel Kant`s Categorical Imperitive, but I think this simpler phrase is good enough). To relate this to the Quran, having seen that this moral framework is in fact supported quite clearly in the Quran.

But as should be clear from this discussion - one need not be a muslim to apply this normative framework...and thus meet the high moral standards that urstruly expects of everyone. :-)

Urstruly: #111 While I realize you are a busy man, I hope you will pay your valuable attention to that measly little post I wrote suggesting you...horrors!!...look at the world through your own eyes, not rely on what other people tell you it is about.

So, again: How many atheists do you know? And how do you know of that their morals dont match your own high standards?

Also, there is that little matter of the catholic priests who were caught with their pants....I mean morals...down. And and then there was your own article salivating ...er...discussing...something about women`s foot, complete with a picture of a foot. I assume one would need to memorize Bokhari or the Bible in order to explain these strange things that our lying eyes show us and which run totally counter to what you so assuredly tell us in your post.

pathetic

Urstruly,

You’ve been hanging around losers too long.

Recently, on another board you are criticizing “western propaganda”. And here you are engaging in propaganda against Ahmadis. What goes around comes around. No?

I have often asked you to validate your wild claims against Ahmadis. Only once did you cite your source, which turned out to be people you had talked to!!!

Like I said, you have hanging around losers too long. And it has rubbed off on you … that’s all.

Urstruly:

Maybe neither of us seems to be paying attention to what the other is saying.

The point I was making was that the people had values long before religions, unless one takes the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet and he brought all these values with him. And if one does take the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet, then one has to accept the fact that, at that time the values included marrying one`s offspring and/or sibling, which changed over time.

The secular position would be that man evolved laws of social living as he evolved socially. Organized religions and their leaders mostly took the existing laws and gave them a religious seal of approval. Let me give an example from the subcontinent. Secular scholars believe that the inhabitants of the subcontinent were at one time great beef-eaters, so much so that the cattle-based agrarian economy was severly threatened as people foresaw an extinction of animals necessary for their economic survival. They than made it a taboo to kill cows and eat beef, which was later incorporated as a religious tenet of the people.

Re: # 116

I think you were not paying attention to what I wrote. I wrote that values are constant. They never change. What changes is our behavior as an individual and culture as a society. Value and culture are two different entities. When an individual or society deviates from a value; the value remains as it is, it is our behaviour towards that value that changes. For example, the ethical value of sodomy remains unchanged in Islam even if the whole Muslim society engages in that act.

On the other hand, an atheist society since have no moral values of their own, they take whatever their current cultural practices as their values. So in an atheist or secular society if today child pornography is frowned upon, tomorrow no one will even care. And in that society no one would ever give a second thought that they are actually doing something wrong. because everybody is doing that. It becaomes a new cultural practice.