Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

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...........

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...........

#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.``

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

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: anil

What exactly is an institution?
Are all institutions bad, or only religious ones?

To keep the debate fair, I think it is important to highlight the ethical contardictions in religion also. Secularism came into existence, as a philosophical concept, specifically because of contradictions - mainly religious contradictions - which were becoming unmanageable, in the running of the state.

The concept of religion, obviously, has two contradictions:

- Which is the correct religion. Religions tend to consider themselves correct. Which would imply that they consider other religions to be incorrect. Since there is no religion that domiantes more than 50% of mankind, according to religious beliefs, a majority of the world is inccorect in its beliefs. Some like the Christian Right state that if one does not consider Jesus to be one`s savior, one is going to hell. Others like Islam, give more leeway and allow Poeple of the Book and all others to be considered correct:

``Those who believe (in the Qur`an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.`` (Verse 62: The Cow)

The above verse is the closest thing I have found, in any religion (though I am no expert on world religions), which encompasses all of humanity, and allows, ``everyone`` to be forgiven. If we assume that the word, ``Allah`` refers to God, in general, and not to an Islamic Allah. Does everyone believe in some concept of a Last Day. Kind of, I would say. Does everyone believe in righteousness. Yes.

However, Islam does critique idol-worshippers, on other occassions. Which obviously wouldn`t go down to well with 1.2 billion Hindus. So there are contradictions there also. As there probalby are, in other religions as well.

So what happens to the human rights of individuals who do not follow the majority religion, in a religious state?

2. Who has the right to interpret the religion. This is a problem in some religions and not in others. In Christianity, it is clearly defined who has this right. As it is in Hinduism (not sure?). But in Islam, it is not defined at all. By design, Islam does not define this. It allows every Muslim to interpret religion. If that is the case, then there are bound to be infinite interpretatins of a Shariah. Which one should be followed? Should the group with the majority or with the biggest guns be allowed to interpret Shariah. If Pakistan had a 95% Ahmedi population and 5% Sunni population, there is a good chance sattar2 would be on the offensive and Urstruly on the defensive, on who is a Muslim and who isn`t.

So, as the contradictions in the religious management of government (specifically in Western Christian states, where the theocracy became far too powerful in state) came to the forefront, secularism emerged. It lasted for a while, because it gave breathing space to religious minorities. However, now the philsophical contradictions in secularism, as a form of governance, are coming to the forefront. Instead of separating church from state, it actually watered down the church`s participation in state to a level where the common belief of all religions were allowed in state (opposition to gay marraige), while those that were uncommon were passed on to the personal sphere.

What then is the answer, when both Urstruly and Dost-mittar are totally convinced they are not discriminating against anyone, even though they diametrically opposite view........Neither of which, at least in my opinion, address the above-mentioned contradictions.........

Here is a link to NY times article that talked about ethics and religion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?em&ex=1175227200&en=69a6eff56315d583&ei=5070

zeemax miaN,

While you are pointificating values versus attitudes … do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death and executing an apostate – cornerstones of your ullema’s shariah.

And your cousin Urstruly has a problem with pornography. What world are you guys living in ...?

bulleya#141:

``The whole western system is based on the concept of individual rights of a person, i.e protecting the minority against the majority``

This is not my understanding. On the contrary, the whole system is a balancing of individual versus communal/societal rights which reflects a society`s preference at any particular time. I am not allowed to smoke marijuana today in Canada because the society does not want to cultivate a tolerance of that drug, even though my smoking it wont harm anyone. I am not even allowed to end my miserable life if I wanted to because the society does not want to encourage this behaviour. All this could change, as has happened in some other countries. This is the essence of the sovereignty of the people. BTW I do believe that Anglo-Saxon societies have tilted the balance too far in favour of individuals, but as long as the majority does not agree with me, all I can do is try to influence the majority why I think what I think and hopefully, over a period of time, a majority will start thinking in the same way.

``You are, infact, confusing two items. You are looking at secularism as a method of government.``

No, I do not think of secularism as a method of government. Democracy is. A democratic government can decide to have a non-secular laws, as is indeed the case of several Muslim countries, including Pakistan, which have democratically decided to let religion be the ultimate arbiter of their laws. Similarly, dictatorships can be secular as was the case in several communist dictatorships, Saddam`s Iraq and Turkey.

#148 by sattar2

... do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death ..

Please quote the ayat of Quran where it says this.

zeemax (re #150)

Ask your ullema, and not me. Or you could simply ask brother Urstruly here ...

When Quran contradicts ullema, they shift the discussion to ahadith. When ahadith are shown to contradict them, they cite consensus among scholars to support their views. It`s sorta like blind leading the blind.

Similarly, Quran vests no authority in anyone to declare another non-Muslim either (ahem, ahem). Do you still want to discuss Quran ... or have you had enough?

Referring to #41 by subhashjoshi...Unfortunately what he quoted is ABSOLUTELY wrong...In Quran Chapter 9, verse 11:(this is the general way of reading 9:11)
``But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.``
But if you take it otherwise i.e., Chapter 11, verse 9 then its like:
``And if We give man a taste of Mercy from Us, and then withdraw it from him, verily! He is despairing, ungrateful.``
Source: http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/
NFP, your article left a bad taste in my mouth.

anil ji

As you know, on one hand institutions are absolutely necessary to make life possible and get any work done in any area. Institutions are our great enablers.

On the other hand, institutions can and regularly do lead to all kinds of troubles, as you mentioned.

So, we are back to relying on the ancient wisdom - that wisdom begins with the attainment of vivek - the ability to recognize distinctions across situations and offer appropriate responses to varying situations.

Unfortunately, these days it is hard to convince people that just because things look the same they are not necessarily the same, and that ignoring of distinctions helps nobody.

So good religion, bad religion - its all the same. All bad for (Indian) communists, all good for religionists the world over. How do we get people to the idea that religions could differ, and within every religion there could be good and bad (institutionalized) elements?

Cricket, which was a gentlemanly sport having become a dirty show-biz profession mostly of the scum of the society, at least so far as the Pakies are concerned, why don`t they avoid at least to Talibanize it by showing repulsive faces with unkempt beards.

Kaptain bahi nice idea
i think we must teach them lesson and tell them how much we love cricket ,so decide the venue and we need some volunteers some body-builders some phaddy baaz and ` mela` party ,and one thing pans will be served after this .
Chowk Sisters can join us aswell esp. ZahraJ ,Sadia Rizwan n Nembu baji
P.S:`
Vote against Inzi . Support KAPTAIN .


PapuPanwari biggest chamcha of Nfp.