Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

Re: dost-mittar #various

The problem is that you think of religion in a very narrow way. For you, it is just a set of supernatural beliefs and some rituals that a person may adopt for personal solace. In fact, religion is, ``what concerns one ultimately``. It is a person`s foundational world-view. No one can be without one. You must have a foundational world view which enables you to decide whether some action is whether some action is moral or not. That is your religion, even if it has no deities or rituals.
You can argue if one religion is better than another. But there is no doing without it.
Every decision a State makes is based on some foundational world-view. So there is no separating religion from state.
The real question is if the State is authoritarian or not.

Re: # 143

Religion is little alien concept for the subcontinental simple folks. It is a tool for political, social and economic exploitation. For simple folks of the subcontinent way of life or Dharma is more dear. For them it means ...

Rain on dry land is an extraordinary thing, is it not? It washes the leaves clean, the earth is refreshed. And I think we all ought to wash our minds completely clean, as the trees are washed by the rain, because they are so heavily laden with the dust of many centuries, the dust of what we call knowledge, experience. If you and I would cleanse the mind every day, free it of yesterday`s reminiscences, each one of us would then have a fresh mind, a mind capable of dealing with the many problems of existence.

I wonder if you have ever stopped to observe the marvelous glow in the west as the sun sets, with the shy young moon just over the trees? Often at that hour the river is very calm, and then everything is reflected on its surface: the bridge, the train that goes over it, the tender moon, and presently, as it grows dark, the stars. It is all very beautiful. And to observe, to watch, to give your whole attention to something beautiful, your mind must be free of preoccupations, must it not? It must not be occupied with problems, with worries, with speculations. It is only when the mind is very quiet that you can really observe, for then the mind is sensitive to extraordinary beauty; and perhaps here is a clue to our problem of freedom.

How can one have this creative joy of living, be expansive in one`s feeling, wide in one`s thinking, and yet be precise, clear, and orderly in one`s life? I think most of us are not like that because we never feel anything intensely; we never give our hearts and minds to anything completely. I remember watching two red squirrels, with long bushy tails and lovely fur, chase each other up and down a tall tree for about ten minutes without stopping-just for the joy of living. But you and I cannot know that joy if we do not feel things deeply, if there is no passion in our lives-passion, not for doing good or bringing about some reform, but passion in the sense of feeling things very strongly; and we can have that vital passion only when there is a total revolution in our thinking, in our whole being.

Have you ever wondered why it is that as people grow older they seem to lose all joy in life? At present most of you who are young are fairly happy; you have your little problems, there are examinations to worry about, but in spite of these troubles there is in your life a certain joy, and is there not? There is a spontaneous, easy acceptance of life, a looking at things lightly and happily. And why is it that as we grow older we seem to lose that joyous intimation of something beyond, something of greater significance? Why do so many of us, as we grow into so-called maturity, become dull, insensitive to joy, to beauty, to the open skies and the marvelous earth?

... Jiddu Krishnamuthi

#140 by bulleya

I agree. It is upto the secularists to respond to your central argument that ``Is it a subtle combination of the religious and/or personal ethics of the majority of the population? If yes, then that violates the philosophical basis of secularism.``

Dost-mittar #137: ``It is the consensual value system (a dynamic, not a static concept) of a society which is embedded in the constitution and legislation of a society.``

This is quite incorrect. The whole western system is based on the concept of individual rights of a person, i.e protecting the minority against the majority. As is the basis of secularism, mind you. This is why the courts routinely rule down laws which suit the majority view at the expense of a minority.

If we use your view, then it was perfectly moral to discriminate against blacks. Or against the Irish. Or against women. It would be alright to pass legislation that a black man and a white woman cannot get married, if the majority supported it.

You are, infact, confusing two items. You are looking at secularism as a method of government. When, infact, secularism is a philosophical concept, i.e. separation of church and state. It, thus, does not take into account any kind of legislation or any kind of majority view. To put it into governmental terms, secularism does not recognize the legislature, it only recognizes a judiciary.

Under secularism, the church has nothing to do with the state, on any issue, regardless of how the majority of the country feels. Even if every MP votes against something, it doesn`t matter under secularism, it is still un-secular. Personal ethical beliefs are neither here nor there, in secularism.

Your view, is, infact, exactly the opposite of what created the concept of secularism. It came into existent to ensure that the majority view was not allowed to dictate to the minority. It shifted the concept of legal and illegal from the majority view to whether the individual was doing anything that harmed another individual. A brother and sister having sex inside their house are not harming you. Are they? Are they harming you if they get married? Not really. They may harm your personal ethics. But are they harming you? If not, then your ethical and/or religious beliefs, about this issue, become irrelevant, under secularism. Infact secularism demands that they become irrelevant.

If a majority of Frenchmen, today, decided that blacks should become slaves again, should that be turned into law also? Should Quebec follow it?

As mentioned before, if you want to understand secularism, you need to stop looking at it as a convenient mechanism of running a government, and start looking at its philosophical basis. Secularism, philosophically, states that the church should be seperate from the state. It does not state that the church should be separate from the state, however, if the majority population legislates otherwise then church and state can be combined.

It is the later that has occured in the Western world, so far. Which is why there are so many contradictions in state laws all over the world (gay marriage is legal in european countries and not in usa. It is legal one day, illegal the next). The former, the prickly philosophical definition of secularism is now starting to challenge the pragmatic and convenient governance definition of secularism. If the states lean towards governace, as you are suggesting, then they will only be hypocritically secular. If they lean to the philosophical definition, then their societies will go through major social upheaval and readjustment of ethical values...........

zeemax #132: ``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?``

Actually, this hits at the heart of the state and church debate. This is why I keep highlighting that there is bound to be a significant change in the philosophical interpretation of secularism. And secularists are having a very tough time adjusting to it.

What is the basis of ethics under secularism? At a personal level, it is religion, or one`s personal beliefs. But, what about at a state level? Who defines those ethics? Is it a subtle combination of the religious and/or personal ethics of the majority of the population? If yes, then that violates the philosophical basis of secularism.

The one common bond between personal and public life, under secularism, is marraige. As mentioned before, marriage is a 100% religious concept. Since it is accepted in every religion, it has become part of public policy. The state legislates on who can get married, how taxes, health care, benefits, child care, school districts et. will be affected by marraige. Marraige is the cornerstone of both personal and public life - not only in religious societies but also in secular states.

This is obviously a contradiction. A secular state should not even touch the concept of marraige. It cannot define the ethics behind it. How can secular ethics be applied on a religious concept? If however, it does try to legislate marraige, then it has to do so totally indiscriminately. If one has to be 18 to get married. Then that should be applied to all religions, all genders etc.

This breaks down when it comes to gender and relationship and number of partners. How can the state legislate on this (keep in mind, it shouldn`t be legislating, in any way on marraige, to begin with), without violating the personal rights of individuals. The brother/sister example points to this. As does cousins. Cousin marraige is the most popular form of marraige in the world. It is banned in 26(?) US states. Infact, the legislations on marriage are completely different in different parts of the USA. Some states interpret it through the Bible. Others do not.

Gay marriage is, thus, the watershed and the unknown frontier of the current secular setup. If you notice, in the USA its opposition calls it the, ``Protection of Marriage`` movement. I don`t think they are too worried about gay marriage. It is the floodgates that will open after the Supreme Court approves gay marriage. The next step will be polygamy, which the mormons practice, and according to secularism, should be legal (or at least, not illegal). Then will come cousin marriage throughout USA (by the way, it is legal in Canada and Europe).

After the above, will come marriage between siblings (by the way, this is acceptable in some cultures). If the state cannot define marriage, how can it declare this illegal. If it is going to define marriage, how can it allow cousins to get married, but not siblings. Why ethical reason can it come up with, if the two married partners are not harming anyone and doing everything in the privacy of their own home?

There is, infact, no ethical reason. The only reasoning given is that it is against culture or religion or that the chances of disease in the newborn increase. Not a convincing enough reason, as many things were culturally and religiously forbidden, but are now allowed under secularism. And many types of marriages can result in higher chances of disease in the second generation. What if the brother and sister and infertile?

This is the final frontier for secularism? How will secularists handle the hypocricy of supporting a separation of state and religion, but only upto their personal ethical boundaries? Are those pushing for Ahmedi rights in Pakistan, under secularism, ready to push for gay rights and gay marriage in Pakistan. There is a good chance there are more gays than Ahmedis in Pakistan. Are the Ahmedis, themselves, ready to push for gay rights and gay marriage in Pakistan?

Or are they going to draw their lines on secularism, i.e. I believe in secularism, but only upto a point. How is that any different than someone who supports the rights of Shias under secularism and not those of Ahmedis. It is, infact, discriminatory secularism.

The problem is that secularists are unwilling to touch the philosophical contradictions in thier beliefs (no pun intended). I watched a talk show where a gay man was arguing in favor of gay marriage, using secularism as an argument. The host asked him if he supported polygamy, under the same argument. He said No, but could not give a valid reason.

The legalization of gay marriage will open up another flood gate. Gay lifestyle, including marriage, by law, will have to be taught on equal terms as hetrosexual lifestyle in all publiclay funded schools. Just like one cannot teach kids that a black man and white woman cannot get into a relationship, similarly schools will have to teach that it is ok for boys to like boys and for them to get married. If it is the law, then it can be demanded by gays that this be taught as a normal lifestyle in all publicly funded schools. Elementary schools will have to teach that not only Jack and Jill go up the hill, but so did Jack and John, followed by Jill and Jane.

So far the only explanations for the opposition of the above that I have heard are those similar to Dost-mittar`s, i.e. it is alright for secularists to oppose gay marraige because it is against the ethical beliefs of a majority of citizens. And these ethical beliefs have nothing to do with religion. Qutie a weak argument, if you ask me. Since marriage is nothing but a religious concept. And because the whole purpose of the liberal secular state is to ensure that personal human rights of individuals are not controlled by the, ``ethical`` beliefs of the majority.

In another 25 to 50 years, Western secular societies will be changed places. They will either move towards far less religion in personal lives (like Europe) or far more (like USA). And the topic of ethics will become a totally different concept than it is today...........

#136 by sri

I was just reinforcing Urstruly`s point that values remain constant, while people`s attitude towards them may become to improvise as you go along :~)

malik99#130:

``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.``

Sir, you are wrong here. I have ``pounced`` upon Bush and his cohorts from the day they started bombing Afghanistan back in 2001. Nor have I ever supported Sharon. As for Saddam, I think that Americans would dearly love to find ``their`` clone of Saddam in Iraq today.

bulleya#128:

I do not think that marriage is only a religious concept; people got married before Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna and the marriage institution did not disappear in the atheist Soviet Union, China or Cuba. Religions have provided rituals and rules of marriage and the respective roles of husbands and wives and socieities, through cumulative choice, have imposed their own rules which may or may not conform to the rules given by religions.

``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. ``

I disagree. It is the consensual value system (a dynamic, not a static concept) of a society which is embedded in the constitution and legislation of a society. I do agree that the Western values give great importance to the rights of the individuals but those rights are constrained everywhere even when they do not impact on anyone else. For instance, France decided to disallow turbans and hijabs in school because the society believes it goes against its value system, Canada allows both as the Canadian value system allows them, but that too could change as at least the people of one province, Quebec, seem to be veering towards the French view.

The real conundrum that a democratic society (secular or otherwise) faces is how to protect itself from a political party coming to power which does not agree with its values and imposes a system which cannot be changed, such as if Bible, Talmud or the Quran are accepted as providing the constitutional boundary of a society.

In the ultimate analysis, it is the people who make the decision. After all, there can be a change in people`s relgious allegiance, as has happened throughout history with the spread of Christianity and Islam. And since different religions have different value systems, including the rules of marriage, divorce, etc., a change in religion could also mean change in the rules of marriage. People who oppose Gay marriages will continue to do so even if they become permissible by religion, as they have by some Christian denominations.

#132 by Zeemax

Yikes!!!

Just wondering if that is the peoples ``dominant discourse`` in western countries.

Of course, desis are awesome self righteous people to do anything like that.

What is puzzling in all this is, inspite of their desis living in their own wealthy countries ( due to their rich self righteous rears ), they seem to jumping in joy at the first chance of boarding a Boeing or Airbus planes destined for debauchered western countries.

zeemax #132 that is bad. of course in pakistan we only have first cousins getting married. :-)

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.

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?

Re: # 131

Kaalchakra & Khurram:

An institution creates an advantage to generate values (good or bad) that otherwise cannot be accomplished. If it is to leverage education, then it is educational institution, and likewise it is to realize economic value or trade then it can be a corporation. Religion in my definition is a belief system. Something you cannot question, but must accept, however emotional or questionable it may be, unlike in other institutions. Now therefore, when religion is institutionalized it creates advantage to exploit questionable ethics and emotions, just as well it can promote good values of the religion. Separating such use from misuse is important.

It is my opinion that Islam today is being challenged to reform itself. I find that in Islam there are concepts, like Fatwa and Jihad, that can be used by a group of disgruntled to create ``institutes`` (or extreme words - killing machines) as if their acts have divine sanctions and all of their acts therefore, are justified. I am surprised why believers of Islam cannot see it, and see that it is doing more harm than good to their belief system - Islam.

Kaalchakra, the ferocity, intensity of suicide bomber is captured in the institution of suicide bombing. Many madarassas who teach such concepts are institutions. Hooded Jamia Hafsa girls in today`s news kidnapping the pimp in Islamabad looked no less fearful than KKK. These girls took law in their hands, in the name of Islamic injunction. This is a creation of another institution. Not all institutions need to be as large as Roman Catholic Church.

I can give you examples of institutions in other religions including Hinduism too. My thesis that it is very dangerous to institutionalize emotions and beliefs holds, unless you want to create mental asylums. Institutionalized religions are very dangerous, and have always been. They have served their purpose of expansion through deliverance of believers.

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.