An Alternative Spelling of Eed #54 & #56

Ustruly,

Please humour us and explain what you mean by
``I must emphasize once again that the so called rationaists, humanists, freethinkers, and agnostics cannot have values``...
``So when an agnostic has no hope, then logically he would not have any value``

So in your view, only religion can install ``values`` in a person`s life and in society? You think so little of man`s own intellectual capacity and awareness of what is morally ``right`` and ``wrong`` that he`s incapable of adopting a set of values in the absence of religious guidance?

Incidentally, you also seem to be confusing atheists with agnostics. Agnostics don`t reject the existence of God. They simply have no evidence of God`s existence, but also don`t disbelieve in him as they have no evidence that he doesn`t exist either.

In Praise (and Defence) of Blasphemy What is blasphemy? If we start from the premise that everything religious is unquestionable and therefore putting it under scrutiny, judging it even, disagreeing with it equals blasphemy, then we have reached a standstill. Contradictory ideas and clashing arguments have always been the driving force that pushed the world forward. The very threat of “blasphemy!” puts free thinking at peril. If Greek philosophers had been threatened with the accusation of blasphemy, or killed for being blasphemous, where would we be now?

There is a marked difference between those in direct pursuit of knowledge and engaged in intellectual inquiry and those who merely set out to deliberately offend one’s religious beliefs. To me… that doesn’t really matter, but I accept that it can be hurtful to others. Nevertheless, even in such a situation, “intentional offence” is all there is to it. “Blasphemy” is a concept that belongs (or rather SHOULD BELONG) to the Middle Ages, along with the array of heated and irrational reactions it spurs and the punishments that accompany the accusation.

Should somebody disagree with an idea put forward or a so-called blasphemous remark, then let those people resort to protest, a legitimate form of dissent. But not to burning books, burning down or desecrating other religious establishments, imprisoning or even killing the “perpetrators”. If I disagree with one’s idea of God and with what that person holds to be religious truth and openly say so, should I be put to death? Why? Because my values and beliefs are not similar to his/hers?

The Middle Ages and its intolerant mentality should have been long gone…

Maulanas cry foul over a ’suhaag-raat’ #34 by Salim_Chauhan (I could be mistaken, but the Yeni Cheri (New Army) or Janizaries were ...)

The Janissaries were indeed the elite corps of the Ottoman army. It may be that some of them ended up as eunuchs, although that was highly unusual. The boys recruited throguh the policy of devshirme, which was in effect a system of human taxation, were Christians from the Balkans, who were brought to Istanbul and then submitted so a process of selection. The most worthy of them were to remain in at the sultan`s court, while those deemed unfit would be sent down to Anatolia.
The ones who stayed on at the court received diverse training... ranging from physical training to languages, law, religion etc. The bulk of them would end up making up the military corps, while the elite who were trained in administrative matters had quite promising career prospects as governors and even viziers.
The close guard of some Ottoman sultans was indeed made up of Janissaries, but that has little or no connection to the eunuchs.