Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

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?

Re: # 128 Bulleya

``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``

Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.

The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.

If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.

Re: # 157

PewResearch

You raise the question:

``You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.``

I raise a counter question:

Do you think there was no religion in Arabia before the advent of Mohammadan Islam?

Re: # 158
Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?

Re: # 160

Certainly: as Inzi, Yuhanna, etc., are degrading Islam by displaying their paganistic ritualism to promote their profession which is anti-Islamic like prostitution.

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.

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........

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.

Paracha - You are hilarious. Like always. Great one. A little overdone on some fronts but a good read. Timing is important and I guess I published mine at a time when there is a lot going on.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007777&channel=university%20ave

Enjoy - MF

bulleya/urstruly:

Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?

Urstruly, I agree with you that values change in a society, which is the way it should be. A society can not shackle itself to any given set of values. Yes, it is possible that the society will go overboard in its evolution but it will soon discover the ill-effects of that change and will correct itself. I will illustrate it with an example that most of us will not like. Western societies went overboard in their peculiar version of multiculturalism in which the host society was supposed to bend backwards to accomodate the cultural needs and sensibilities of the immigrant without a similar commitment by the newcomer to conform to the value system of the host society. Now that the effects of these policies are coming home to roost, these societies have started to adjust. Yesterday, a new political party in Quebec scored tremendous gains in the provincial elections, mainly on its leaders campaign to preserve the essential characteristic of the Quebec society and against what its leader called undue accomodation.

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.