Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

[mukto-mona] Informative facts, send to your local representatives--



Inputs for the US Congress on the War Crimes Trial and on Accountability

 

A. Why the ICT-BD

The government of Bangladesh enacted the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 for investigation, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of those crimes. The entire nation wants to come out from the culture of impunity. Without prosecutions, there would be no healing. In post conflict societies, peace only comes with justice. The Government of Bangladesh cannot shrink off its responsibilities, if it aims at a democratic, developed and peaceful Bangladesh.  It is to be reiterated that Bangladesh considers that the right to remedy should also belong to victims of war crimes. State has an obligation to remedy crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations.

 

The Tribunal (ICT-BD) has been constituted on 25 March 2010 under our domestic legislation known as the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973(the Act XIX of 1973). The degree of fairness as has been contemplated in the Act and the Rules of Procedure formulated by the Tribunal under the powers conferred in section 22 of the principal Act are to be assessed with reference to the national needs such as, the long denial of justice to the victims of the atrocities committed during 1971 independence war and the nation as a whole. 

 

Ours is an ex-post facto legislation enacted in 1973 and after significant updating the ICTA 1973 through amendment in 2009, the present government has constituted the Tribunal on 25 March 2010. Independent Investigation Agency and the prosecutors' Panel have also been established under the Act of 1973. Such domestic jurisdiction of the State is surely one of the manifestations of state sovereignty and hardly raises any concern from other states or bodies. But the concerns raised revolve chiefly the apprehension regarding respecting the cardinal principles of due processes and fairness of trial.

 

B. Composition and Nature of the Tribunal

 

Section 6(2) provides that any person who is a Judge or is qualified to be a Judge, or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh shall be appointed as Chairman and Member of the Tribunal. Accordingly, currently the Tribunal is composed of one Chairman and two Members of whom Chairman and one Member are the sitting Judges of the Bangladesh Supreme Court and another member is a retired District Judge.

 

The crimes defined in the ICTA 1973 are regarded as matters of international concern because of their grave character and thus, excepting the specific nature of the crimes, the ICT-BD is purely a domestic tribunal that has been established to try crimes of international nature criminalized under our domestic legislation enacted by the sovereign Parliament of Bangladesh

 

Merely for the reason that the Tribunal is preceded by the word "international" and possessed jurisdiction over crimes such as Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace, Genocide, and War Crimes,  it will be wrong to assume that the Tribunal must be treated as an ''International Tribunal''

 

 

C. Pre-charge detention

 

Currently , seven persons allegedly responsible for committing the offence(s) as enumerated in the ICTA 1973  have been detained only when on request of prosecution the Tribunal is satisfied that such detention was necessary for effective and proper investigation and also for effective and expeditious trial. Investigation Agency is entrusted to investigate into 40 years old system crimes committed in violation of international humanitarian law, Genocide Convention. Considering the needs of IA for effective investigation those persons allegedly responsible for perpetration of offences enumerated in section 3(2) of the ICTA 1973 the Tribunal ordered their detention. In no way they cannot be said to be arbitrarily detained.

 

Additionally, Different countries follow different processes. It should be kept in mind that different countries have different procedures and different courts have had different procedures. The Cambodia court which follows a more continental law basis system has, in fact, detained the four cabinet members of the Pol Pot government for close to three years before formal charging, during the investigative process. So it is permitted. It is permitted to detain people, though the conditions of their continued detention have to be subject to judicial review. Thus, the persons detained cannot be said to have been arbitrarily detained on any count.

In ICT-BD, question of bail at pre-charge stage is being periodically reviewed and the Tribunal has formulated explicit jurisdiction in Rule 9(6) of ICT-BD in this regard. Rule 9(6) of ICT-BD reads as below:

 

"After every three months of detention of the accused in custody the investigation officer through prosecutor shall submit a progress report of investigation before the Tribunal on perusal of which it may make a review of its order relating to the detention of the accused."

 

We will find that recently Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and 5 others have been convicted by the ICTR and they had been in detention for long 14 years and the accused persons facing trial that has been commenced few months back in ECCC, Cambodia have been in detention for more than three and half years.

 

However, it does not mean that the ICT-BD intends to justify such prolonged detention and that is why it has formulated rules relating to time frame of completing investigation and rules relating to release of accused on bail on condition to be imposed by the Tribunal. Even till today many accused persons have been detained in ICTR and their trial still in progress since couple of years. War criminal is known as enemies of human kind. Considering the extent of horrendous crimes the suspects have been kept in detention. But in ICT-BD, as we see, within shortest period of time from the date of showing them arrested/detained before this tribunal the IA has been able to complete investigation in most cases.

 

 

 

 

D. Judicial review of the detention

 

In ICT-BD, as we see, within shortest period of time from the date of showing them arrested/detained before this tribunal the IA has been able to complete investigation in most cases. In ICT-BD, question of bail at pre-charge stage is being periodically reviewed and the Tribunal has formulated explicit jurisdiction in Rule 9(6) of ICT-BD in this regard. Rule 9(6) of ICT-BD reads as below:

 

"After every three months of detention of the accused in custody the investigation officer through prosecutor shall submit a progress report of investigation before the Tribunal on perusal of which it may make a review of its order relating to the detention of the accused."

 

 

E. Providing notice of formal charge

 

Article 9(2) ICCPR contains-"Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. " This provision compatibly reflects in the Rule(3) of ICT-BD that  provides-

 

"At the time of executing the warrant of arrest under sub-rule (2) or later on, copy of allegations is to be served upon such person."

 

 Further, Rule 18 (4) of ICT-BD provides

 

"The Chief prosecutor shall file extra copies of formal charge and copies of other documents for supplying the same to the accused(s) which the prosecution intends to rely upon in support of such charges so that the accused can prepare his defense." Thus, right to disclosure has been adequately ensured so that the suspect person can have opportunity to defend his own interest.

 

In our legal system, at investigation stage there has been no room to infer that the allegation under investigation is vague. It is not true that the allegation was not informed to accused instantly after their detention.  Therefore and since the Rules contain explicit provision as to right to know the allegation after arrest/detention , right to disclosure of charge(s) and to have assistance of interpreter, as contained in the ICTA 1973 it is not correct to say that accused persons' liberty has been curtailed in contravention of Article9(2) and 14(3)(a) ICCPR.

 

F. To understand charge and to have adequate opportunity to defend

 

Adequate time to get preparation of defense is one of key rights that signifies the fairness of the proceedings. Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR states,

 

"To have  adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing."

 

What we see in the ICTA 1973? This provision has been attuned in Section 16(2) of the ICTA 1973 that reads,

 

"A copy of the formal charge and a copy of each of the documents lodged with the formal charge shall be furnished to the accused person at a reasonable time before the trial; and in case of any difficulty in furnishing copies of the documents, reasonable opportunity for inspection shall be given to the accused person in such manner as the Tribunal may decide."

 

Additionally, what time is considered adequate depends on the circumstances of the case. The ICT-BD is quite conscious ensuring this key right of defense. There has been no single instance that the ICT-BD refused to grant time on appeal or request of the defense side.  The Tribunal, through judicial practices, has already developed the notion that each party must have a reasonable opportunity to defend its interests. It is to be mentioned that there has been not a single instance that any of accused person has been denied any of his right to have time necessary for preparation of his defense or interest. 

 

G. Right of accused during interrogation

 

There are rules in some other tribunals that if an accused person is questioned he has the right to have his counsel present during that questioning, and he needs to be told that he has that right and that if he can't afford a counsel, that a counsel will be appointed to represent him. But that he can, if he voluntarily waives that right, go ahead and talk.

 

Such kind of right intends to prohibit coercion, torture etc. Practice of ensuring such safeguard has been developed in ICT-BD despite absence of explicit rules and the Tribunal has made it ensured that at the time of interrogation defence counsel and a doctor shall be present in a room adjacent to that where the accused is interrogated and during break time they are allowed to consult the accused.

 

 

H. Key elements of fair trial

 

It is not correct to say that current legal framework of ICT-BD does not guarantee the required procedural protections of the defendant's right to fair trial both in pre-trial phase and during trial  The ICTA 1973 and the Rules  framed there under explicitly and adequately offer all the key elements of fair trial which are (a) Fair  and impartial tribunal, (b)Public trial,(c)Accused to know of the charges against him and the evidence against him,(d)Entitlement of having copy of formal charge together with documents collected during investigation,(e)Adequate time of getting preparation of defense,(f)Services of a defense counsel and interpreter;,(g) Full opportunity to present his defense, ' including the right to call witnesses and produce evidence before the tribunal, (h) Right to cross-examine witnesses, In the event of conviction, imposition of a sentence which does not outrage the sentiments of humanity, (i) .Right of appeal against final verdict.

 

The above rights of defense and procedure given in the Act of 1973 and the Rules of Procedure are the manifestations of the "due process of law" and "fair trial" which make the legislation of 1973 more humane, jurisprudentially resonance and legally valid.  The Tribunal has made it ensured that at the time of interrogation defense counsel and a doctor shall be present in a room adjacent to that where the accused is interrogated and during break time they are allowed to consult the accused, despite the fact that statement made to investigation officer shall not be admissible in evidence.

 

I. Presumption of innocence

 

No one can be convicted unless the charge brought against him is proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This is the normal and universally settled criminal jurisprudence that all the courts constituted under valid legislation will follow. This settled norm does not need to be embodied in the Act.

 

The provision that the burden of proving the charge shall lie upon the prosecution (Rule 50) amply implicates the theory of innocence of an accused until and unless he is held guilty through trial.  However,  a new rule has been adopted that a person charged with crimes as described under section 3(2) of the Act shall be presumed innocent until found guilty[Rule43(2)].

 

 

J. Equality of Arms, Public hearing by competent & independent Tribunal

 

The ICTA 1973, Rules framed there under and the judicial practices adopted by the Tribunal adequately offer the notion that the persons before the ICT-BD are getting reasonably equal treatment in defending their own interest. Equality of arm is an expression that means that each party must have a reasonable opportunity to defend its interest. Parties are getting this opportunity.

 

  • Section 10(4) provides that "the proceedings of the tribunal shall be public".
  • Section 6[(2A)] provides that "the Tribunal shall be independent in the exercise of its judicial functions and shall ensure fair trial" .
  • The Tribunal is composed of competent judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
  • Proceedings are public and transparent. Media, observers are allowed to watch the proceedings.
  • The Judges discharge judicial functions according to ICTA 1973, Rules keeping the matter of meeting the highest universally recognized norms of fair trial in mind.

 

The above provisions and practices are manifestation that proceedings before the ICT-BD are public and transparent and the Tribunal has been functioning quite independently,  in exercise of its own wisdom, legal acumen to ensuring highest degree of fairness.

 

Independence of a judicial mechanism is a key and fundamental condition of its functions and of ensuring fair trial. Section 6(2A) provides that

 

"The tribunal shall be independent in the exercise of its judicial functions and shall ensure fair trial".

 

This provision is quite compatible with the international standard. This provision together with the provision relating to composition of the tribunal and appointment of judges shall appear to be similar to the organization and composition of the tribunal, qualifications and appointment of judges under Articles 10-13 of the ICTY and ICTR Statute

 

K. Retroactivity

.

The Act of 1973 has been given retrospectivity, which might be misread by both admirers and skeptics if the facts of the 1971 genocide and the birth of Bangladesh are not appreciated in their contexts. Retrospectivity of criminal law, which has been prohibited in the Constitution, is also a serious concern in the international criminal law jurisprudence, but the case of Bangladesh does not quite fit into that. As mentioned, international crimes are subject to prosecution and punishment irrespective of domestic criminalization of international (war) crimes. The 1973 Act has simply enacted, in a fashion of recognition, the then existing international rules concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity. The duty of the State to locally prosecute international crimes pre-dates the 1973 Act. Moreover, the prosecution of crimes against humanity is a widely acknowledged exception to the principle of non-retrospectivity.

 

 

It must be noted that the ICTY was formed in 1993, two years after the commission of crimes, and the SCSL was formed in 2002, eight years after the commission of the concerned crimes. It is hard to see the reasoning behind criticism in questioning the permissibility of the ICTA, a law that was enacted by the Bangladesh Parliament within a year and half of the commission of the concerned crimes.

 

Not only is the retroactive justice process of crimes a widely practiced legal norm, Article 15(2) of the ICCPR makes a clear exception to non-retroactivity: "Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations." The ICTA 1973 is entirely consistent with ICCPR Article 15(2).

 

The ICC is the only institution which possesses prospective jurisdiction, meaning that it can only deal with crimes committed after its governing statute came into force. Thus, the ICC is rendered incapable of exercising jurisdiction over the crimes committed in Bangladesh in 1971. This is another reason as to why Bangladesh had to, despite being a signatory to the Rome Statute, initiate its own process to try the crimes committed in 1971

L. Witness victim protection

 

Sometimes, direct witnesses, if available, may not forthcoming to testify, particularly if they do not feel secured and protected. Providing protective measure to the victims and witnesses is thus imperative to ensure their effective participation to the justice system. Such measures may be needed even at post trial stage. The Tribunal has incorporated rules in this regard in its Rules of Procedure

 

M. Old Age of accused: Core International Crimes

 

In ICT-BD, one accused M.A Alim (80) is on bail. Six other accused persons (age range (65-75) and one accused Ghulam Azam (89) are in detention/continued detention by order of the Tribunal. All of them are getting all necessary facilities and highest degree of treatment as and when needed. Even one accused Delwar Hossain Sayedee has been allowed to have treatment in hospital of his own choice and own cost. 

 

Time and again the question has arisen: Are you ever too old or too ill to be judged for your past? Are justice and the public interest served by trying such infirm people? Most experts says it's justified—arguing responsibility doesn't diminish with age, especially set against the enormity of the crimes. "Old age should not afford protection to people who committed very serious crimes---that's not a defence. You have to keep in mind the victims who deserve that their tormenters are held accountable; the passage of time doesn't diminish the guilt'"  

 

John Demjanjuk a 91 year old retired US autoworker convicted in Munich in the month of May 2011. His lawyers failed to convince the court that the former Nazi death camp guard was too sick to be tried because of bone marrow disorder, kidney disease, anemia and other ailments.

 

The age and medical condition of Khmr Rouge accused persons is also a central issue in ECCC, UN backed Tribunal in Cambodia, set June 2011 to judge four of the brutal regime's top officials. Those accused, ranging in age from 79-80, have been suffering from variety of illnesses. Yet, they are in detention. "To let them away because they are old means they would get away with it". Brad Adams, Director of the Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, said about those Khmr Rouge defendants."

(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/31/aging-ill-war-crimes-suspects-still-face-trials/

 

N. Rights of defense embodied in the ICTA 1973

 

·        At least three weeks before commencement of trial list of witnesses intended to be produced along with recorded statement of such witnesses or copies thereof and copies of documents which the prosecution intend to rely have to be furnished (Section 9(3)]

 

·        Copy of formal charge together with documents collected during investigation shall be furnished to accused person at a reasonable time before the trial [section 16(2)]

 

·         Before calling additional witnesses or tendering any further evidence notice is to be given to the defense [proviso of section 9(4)]. Objects of these sections are to provide adequate opportunity for getting preparation of defense through due process.

 

·        The accused shall have right to examine witnesses [section 10(1)

 

·         the right to interpreter [section 10(3)];the right to expeditious trial [section 11(3)]

 

·         the right to have counsel engaged at the expense of the government (section 12)

 

·         the right to remain free from compulsion in making confession [section 14(2)];

·         the right to inspect document [section 16(2)];

·        the right to conduct own defense [section 17(2)];

 

·         the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses [section 17(3)]

 

·         the right to appeal [section 21(1)]

 

 

The Rules of Procedure (ROP) has ensured all the possible and universally recognized rights of defense which principally include—

 

  • Prohibition of arbitrary arrest. Only with the order of the tribunal an order of arrest or detention may be done. (Rule 9)
  •  Prohibition of prosecution on frivolous charge (Rule 29[2] )
  •  Prohibition of coercion, duress or threat of any kind (Rule 16(2)
  •  Prohibition of self incrimination by making confession [Rule 25(2) & section 14(2)]
  •  Right to be enlarged on bail. [Rule 34(2)]
  •  Discharge an accused if the tribunal finds no adequate reason to presume that the accused committed the offence charged (Rule 37).
  • Adequate time for preparing defense [Rule 38(2)]
  • The tribunal may allow appearance of foreign counsel for either party if Bangladesh Bar Council permits so ( Rule 42)
  • Appointing defense counsel at state's expense (Rule 43)
  • Presumption of innocence [Rule 43(2)]
  • Burden of Proof lies on prosecution (Rules 50-54)
  • Right to speedy trial [Rule 43(5)]
  • Prohibition of self incrimination or making confession [Rule 43(7)]

 

Finally, we see that the ICTA 1973 and the Rules explicitly offer the key elements of due process and fair trial procedure. The above rights of defense and procedure given in the Act and the Rules of Procedure are the glaring manifestations of the "due process of law" and "fair trial" which make the legislation of 1973 jurisprudentially sound and legally valid. We do not consider inferring that Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, has been denied in any manner, in prosecuting the persons responsible for perpetration of system crimes committed in violation of customary international law.

 

 

O. Compatibility of ICTA 1973 with ICCPR (comparison)

 

In wrapping up, it is necessary to state that the provisions of the ICTA 1973 are compatible with the rights of the accused enshrined under Article 14 of the ICCPR. The following account identifies some of the main rights and also points out the corresponding Sections in the ICTA which acknowledges those rights:

 

a. To be informed of charge(s) promptly

 

Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR states, "In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him."

 

Section 10(3) of the ICTA 1973 : This provision is reflected in Section 10(3) of the ICTA 1973 which states, "Any accused person or witness who is unable to express himself in, or does not understand, English may be provided the assistance of an interpreter.

 

b. Adequate time for defence preparation

 

Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR states, "To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing."

 

Section 16(2) of the ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 16(2) of the ICTA 1973 which states, "A copy of the formal charge and a copy of each of the documents lodged with the formal charge shall be furnished to the accused person at a reasonable time before the trial; and in case of any difficulty in furnishing copies of the documents, reasonable opportunity for inspection shall be given to the accused person in such manner as the Tribunal may decide."

 

c. To be tried without undue delay

 

Article 14(3)(c) of the ICCPR states, "To be tried without undue delay."

 

Section 11(3) of the ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 11(3) of the ICTA 1973, which states that a Tribunal shall, "(a) confine the trial to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges" and "(b) take measures to prevent any action which may cause unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements."

 

d. Right to defend in person and legal assistance

 

Article 14(3) (d) of the ICCPR states, "To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it."

 

Section 17(2) of the ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 17(2) of the ICTA 1973 which states, "An accused person shall have the right to conduct his own defence before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of counsel."

 

e. Right to examine witness

 

Article 14(3) (e) of the ICCPR states, "To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

 

Section 17(3) of the ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 17(3) of the ICTA 1973 which states, "An accused person shall have the right to present evidence at the trial in support of his defence, and to cross-examine any witness called by the prosecution."

 

 

f. Right to Interpreter

 

Article 14(3) (f) of the ICCPR states, „„To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

 

Section 10(3) of ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 10(3) of ICTA 1973 which states, "Any accused person or witness who is unable to express himself in, or does not understand, English may be provided the assistance of an interpreter."

 

g. Right to appeal

 

Article 14(5) of the ICCPR states, "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law."

 

Section 21 of the ICTA 1973: This provision is reflected in Section 21 of the ICTA 1973 which states, "A person convicted of any crime specified in Section 3 and sentenced by a Tribunal shall have the right of appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh against such conviction and sentence: Provided that such appeal may be preferred within sixty days of the date of order of conviction and sentence."

 

It is therefore evident from the above comparative account that the ICTA 1973 does indeed adhere to most of the rights of the accused enshrined under Article 14 of the ICCPR. Furthermore, it must be understood that the purpose of Article 14 of the ICCPR is to provide some general guidelines applicable to ordinary criminal proceedings. Instead, Article 15 of the ICCPR is meant to apply to the other special domestic proceedings related to international crimes, that is, through special tribunals like the ICT.

 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling



Dr. Das, the big-bang theory may be old, but it explains events I was discussing.

 

As for the blaspheme issue: let me borrow the quote from Shah Deeldar:

 

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS


--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 9:38 PM

 
Dr. Roy, even the big bang theory is outdated long ago.  In cosmology, a theory is created every six months.  All those disciples of Moses, Jews, Christians and Moslems who believe that the Universe was created in six days should first explain what days they are talking about.  Isn't a day the time required for the earth to complete a spin, or apparently the time taken by the Sun to circle around the earth?

So the Genesis story falls apart right away.  Let Mr. Rahman be in peace with his revealed stories of the Holy Quran, let him be happy with the Islamic version of Ariyan heresy that Allah created the Universe with advice and instruction from Nur Muhammad.  It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

You are right initially some power was needed to get the process going. That was the big-bang, the instigating force behind all these. This power did not create Mother Nature; it happened long after the big-bang through many evolutionary cycles.

 

You probably will admit that God is not a human, because – in order to be 'omnipresent,' God has to possess infinite dimension, which Mother Nature has. Almightiness of Mother Nature is demonstrated during the thunderous lightning in the storm or during hurricanes or earthquakes. When religious scripture says God is 'forgiving,' it refers to the same nature, that accepts everyone indiscriminately (good, bad, religious, non-religious, and, yes, atheists). What it means is - we are too insignificant in the eye of the omnipresent, almighty, and all-forgiving God.

 

Unfortunately - most people, educated and uneducated alike, envision God as a human-like object, and that's where we go wrong. Following that notion, people do all sorts of crazy things to please Him.  They do things assuming - God has eyes, and He will see what the heck they are doing; they talk to him, hoping - He has ears, and He will listen to and understand what they are asking for in their weird languages. Even people sacrifice their lives, assuming - God is noticing and He will reward them in the after-life. The whole thing is out of whack and crazy. What they forget is – we are insignificant creatures in the wide universe.

 

Therefore, religious scriptures may be correct, but our interpretations may be all wrong.

 

Jiten Roy



--- On Tue, 7/24/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:06 AM


 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 


>>>>>>>>>>> Member Roy, I do know who created "Mother nature". I was making a comment about it. The chicken or egg don't fall from the sky on their own. Some power had to start the cycle at one point of time.

Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?


>>>>>>>>>> Again I am not asking anything. Simply offering an alternative view to the topic. I am comfortable with my findings and it does not contradict with what modern science accepts. Sharing a little here. ...

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'   So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.   
(The Noble Quran, 41:11-12)"

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 
(The Noble Quran, 21:30)"


Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena.


>>>>>>>>> They are natural phenomena. However at some point of time, some power had to get the process going. For example: just because you need a cell phone, your Nokia does not come up "Naturally". Someone had to think of it, design it and produce it. Once it is produced, it works according to some set "Programs". Similarly ever mother nature has some "Rules" and it works according to the design.


If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma,


>>>>>>>>>> I can only speak for myself here. I did not "Go back to the Qur'an" as part of some "Blind faith". I have provided many references to establish/support my point of view. My views may have some religious leaning but my methodology is as secular and scientific as you can get.


The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories


>>>>>>>>>> I think the sources and references have to be visited before you accept it or reject it. There are world known scientists who work on these issues and they don't go by blind faith. Since our "Mother nature" theory is also a "faith based" phenomenon, I guess the Qur'an based explanation made more sense to me (personal opinion!).

I respect your point of views and your freedom to pick what sounds right to you. Thank you for taking part in the discussion.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 7:04 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Q. Rahman: "I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature".
 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 
 
According to scientific explanation - Universe was created out of an explosion. Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?  I would say it's an accident; nobody creates accident; it just happens. 
 
Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena. They happen under right condition. Thinking about this – Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate Scientist, Columbia University, mentioned to one of his students, Stanley L. Miller, to organize an experiment to procreate these natural phenomena. They set up a container with right mixture of gases (to represent early stages of the earth's surface) and subjected them to an artificial electric spark to simulate lightening. In a week, little red liquid started to form. They analyzed it, and found that it contains amino acids, the building blocks of the organic life-form (DNA). Thus, it is believed that life begun in shallow pools on the earth's surface, known as organic soup.
If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma, the creator. Actually, it is up to the aptitude of each individual to believe in any of these stories. The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories. Hence, I will stick to the scientific explanations, until further plausible explanation comes along.  Thank you.
Jiten Roy
 
I know - this scientific explanation is not convincing to you; so you have referred to the Quran.  

--- On Mon, 7/23/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:43 AM

 
How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?


>>>>>>>> Absolutely. No one can deny mother nature. I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature". Your cell phone did not make itself, it needed a maker (RIM, Apple, Nokia, Samsung...etc). Similarly the wonderful nature we see around us needed a "Maker" as well. A chapter in the Qur'an talks about it. It consistently ask readers the question, " Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"

Indeed our Maker gave us so many gifts.

Shalom!




-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Religion was once a shuva-sanskar (positive reform) for the primitive societies, not any more. With the advent of the scientific and psychological advancement and understanding, the role of religion in the society is diminished. This is because - many of those good religious virtues are already adopted as norms in the society.  What's left to be adopted is the anti-modernity ku-sanskar (negative reform). Religionists are constantly fighting with pro-modernity forces to implement those anti-modernity ku-sanskars. As a result, religion has been a drag for the advancement of the modern societies now.
 
Now, as far as atheists are concerned - they are still fighting the conceptual battle over the existence of God, which is leading them to many psychological and conceptual conflicts. How can I deny something that is unknown? To me, it's a needless battle. God exists only in our concept. I am sure most people, except religionists, will agree that - all living-beings are the offspring of the Mother Nature. Spiritual songs of Rabindra Nath Tagore are all devoted to the Mother Nature. That was his conceptual God, I believe. Your conceptual God lives in your aptitude and imagination. How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Tue, 7/17/12, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 8:41 AM

 
Yours may be one of some possible explanations. I still remember what Bani Basu, a novelist from West Bengal and wife of a Buddhist scholar, has written in the introduction of her "semi-historical" novel "Maitrya Jatak": "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thosands of years of our forefathers. To this has been added the strong religious environment the atheist is living in. It's foundation in our subconscious mind is so splod that even a "confirmed" atheist fails to escape it completely. And this manifests itself in an atheist's love for devotional or spiritual songs of  Rabindranath and others.  
 
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so? "

Very interesting observation!
Here is my two cents:
No matter how much we know about the nature and its laws, it will still be a mystery for us for many millions years to come. We will never be able to attain the absolute knowledge that we might need to predict a future incident like a plane crash in the sky or say, us facing certain deaths on certain dates. That insecurity might be a factor why we still do not mind to sing the hallelujah hymn to yield that undefined mysterious power to a greater power than ours own? 
-SD   
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
1.Use of drug has been an integral part of the culture of many secretive and semi-secretive cults. The "sati" had sometimes to be drugged to persuade her to walk onto the burning pyre of her dead husband. I have seen smoking of "ganja" by people (male) of all ages during the religious event called "trinather mela". In urban religious practices of Hinduism, this (smoking ganja) has been greatly marginalized or probably has vanished. Many Hindu sadhus cannot do without it. Drug opens spiritual window for the truth seeker. In my young life I have seen disciples (fans) sitting around the master (male or female) to get engaged in profound spiritual talks while smoking ganja.  
2. There has always been uses of the religion by the exploiters as the opiate of the masses. But it has other uses too. Think about a typical Indian Hindu mother with little education and who was born 80 years ago. Religion has taught her to completely devote herself to the service of her husband. This is exploitative part. On the other hand religion gives her God or gods and goddesses to be worshiped for piety and spiritual and mystical experiences and pleasure as well. Also observance of religious rituals is a part of her daily routine. Obviously fear factor is a motive force behind her religious behavior. But what about the 100-year old educated and highly religious father who sees same one God in every god and goddess and who has no belief in hell or heaven or in piety? Yes, at the times of hardships and distress he prays and tears roll down his cheeks while he is praying. Here religion provides him with a drug free comfort. Here I see a great utility of religion in the personal life of a believer. When he is in total despair, he completely submits himself to God.   
3. There is hardly any one who chose his own religion. He already has it by default and it is now his duty to practice it believing that it is a great thing and he should be proud of it. While practicing it and knowing more and more about it questions may however arise in his inquiring mind. 
4. Being proud of one's own religion and considering the same as the best one is typical of the educated and socially and politically conscious class. Common toiling and economically struggling people do not have time to engage in such a luxury. Even he has hardly any time to observe all the recommended rituals. 
5. Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so?                        
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind!"  In reality, the psychedelic drugs had a great role in the development and propagation of religions.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people."
I call it the last resort to belong to a huge cult. I would rather look at it from a Freudian angle. It is far easier to become a religious man than a true knowledge gatherer. It brings pride to people who have nothing else to proud of! Why would a criminal be interested in converting to born again in something after five consecutive murders? What would be a better choice for him/her? Learning more about how celestial objects are faithfully orbiting around other stars and planets? Or, take a new religious attire and demand respect from others? No doubt, the later sounds far easier! Look, my words are harsh but that is what I feel about religions. If anybody thinks that the God being on their side, I say, keep dreaming on brothers and sisters. To me, it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind! No more and no less! -SD  

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
People believe in many things; not all those beliefs are revealed to others. We all have our own prejudices/superstitions. Exposing one's prejudices is like exposing one's 'stupidities.' As a result, people rarely talk about them. How do you express that you believe in something that does not exist? Is it a sign of smartness or what?
Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people. So  they feel the need to show their religiosity to others in their religious attires and/or appearances to stir up otherwise nonexistent resentment and hatred. There is no end in sight to end these types of cultural disturbance in our societies.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Fri, 7/13/12, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012, 9:53 AM

 
How you feel about your own faith and belief is not anybody's concern unless you impose your values and standard on others. To me, it is more important to see whether a belief takes people to the dark ages or enlightenment of a verifiable truth. I can tolerate your belief but may not respect your belief. If you are a free thinker, that should be totally OK with you as I would follow the same rule.
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Actually arrogance is bad for all people. It eats up best qualities from our personalities. However, if you ask me about my faith and how I feel about it, you should be able to tolerate my "Opinion" on MY faith matters. I have seen people have some preconceived notions about religious people and often go with it. Having tolerance and rejecting/reducing arrogance are "Best practices" for any peaceful communities. No matter if you want to view it from religious point of view or secular point of view. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only thing I can add here is that the people, who are truly spiritual and never stop asking questions about our origin and our relation to the universe should not have any problem with little critic.  If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem. But. that is not happening in practice and hence, they do deserve critic now and then. Any belief should be challenged now and then before it gets transformed as an universal truth. The next thing you will find that people will be demanding the religiously adjusted science in the public schools. Who would want that? How would reach to the next frontier with such compromised science?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
I have thought about the question also - as to why people get offended by the criticism of their religions; why can't they leave it to God.  This is what I found.
People are interested in religion not only for the eternal rewards, but - also they are also interested in the brand name of the clan. Religion is no different from other commercial commodity. It needs to be sold for continued expansion, and criticism is not good for the business, and also for the reputation of the clan.  As a result, people cannot wait for God's punishment.
Now, the tolerance level of criticism varies from followers to followers. Some followers may care more about eternal rewards than expansionism. They will have more tolerance to criticism. Some followers could be totally indifferent of criticism. It's a matter of priority.
Having said that, I have to recognize that, while protecting the brand name is discouraged in some religions, it is mandatory in others. 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 4:36 PM

 
Along with making a little correction in my post below, let me put forth my thoughts on one of the terms that I have used.
                                                                                                                   
Abusing Religion:
 
From time to time, many religious people accuse non-religious people and people of other religions of abusing their religion. Example: if someone were to open up the Bible and criticize something in it, he/she would be accused by some Christians of abusing their religion. I said "some" (as opposed to "many") for Christians, because I believe this group has progressed significantly for a lot of them to ignore such criticisms.
 
However, let us try some logic. What can be more abuse for God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages) than the so-called believers to think that He is not almighty, and that He needs help from them? What can be more doubting of God's power than thinking that He needs humans to fight for Him (or for His religion) in this world?
 
The way I see it, if someone actually insulted God or His messenger, a true believer could feel pity for the insulter. Because, according to the belief, the insult was against the most powerful, and the insulter might have invited big trouble for himself/herself in the form of punishment from God. If God knew best, the believer would have no business prescribing a punishment for the insulter. The most civilized and caring action for the believer would be to pray to God to change the insulter's mind, the power of which God certainly has according to his/her true belief.
 
The bottom line is, if religion was really for believing in the almighty God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages), as opposed to forming/maintaining/expanding a clan, there should be no reason for humans to fight, or to hate, for maintaining or promoting it.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=================================================
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Indeed, I believe most of us in this forum are opposed to religion-peddling, as Ms. Majid wrote. As I wrote before, there is no point in opening up religious books for criticism, even when that might look scholarly.
 
I am opposed to the use, misuse and abuse of religions, all of which have caused a lot of division, hatred and injustice in the world. While I do not follow any religion, I am not unwilling to do something just because if was found in a religious book. In other words, I am perfectly OK to implement in my life anything that is good in the Koran, for example.
 
To me, all religious books are part of my history. None of them are "my religion" or "someone else's religion." I am open to follow anything good in any book. I have no animosity toward any religion. For me, no religion needs to have cadres of defenders.
 
However, I am certainly for discarding anything bad in any book. And I am unwilling to dig for contexts by which a seemingly bad teaching can be interpreted to be OK or good. Nor do I have time for overly-brainwashed 'scholars', who try to sustain and promote nonsense in what they think is 'their religion'.
 
The bottom line is, we should fight division, hatred and injustice that are promoted via use, misuse and abuse or religions.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
====================================
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
There is a gray area between religion itself and the way it is used by vested interest groups. In a God fearing society it is unproductive and sometimes catastrophic to bluntly criticize a religion. It antagonizes common people and the reactionary forces get an excuse to pull them on their own side. But can a society really progress without pointing out the weaknesses in a religion? Obviously, No. But if we do so, religious feelings of the believers cannot but be hurt. It is a dilemma indeed. When Dipa Mehta shows in her film "Water" the quote from Gandhi and Manusanhita side by side, the Hindutvabadis do not like it. But we come to know that Gandhi did not endorse all of sage Manu's sacred pronouncements.
 
======================================
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
                  Do we all agree, on this one point, that we are all opposed to religion-peddling? I fervently hope that the answer is: YES.                 If so, then it is our solemn duty to understand the matter of 'religion-peddling'.                          In this business of religion -peddling it is the 'peddling' part that should command our attention.  And that requires certain in-depth and close attention to politics. Religion is a very powerful cultural artifice, and since both politics and religion deal with a community of people, there has been a mix of the two from time immemorial.  But we are constantly talking about religion-related  social symptoms, and mis-diagnosing them as 'religion'.  Why? There are several reasons.  One, mental laziness.  It takes a lot more patience and astute observation to do a political analysis. It needs historical information.              Throughout the 16th century in Europe , for instance, the Catholic Church was fighting an intense political battle with the breaking up of the Church.  The execution of the Nolan Magus and poet, Giordano Bruno, who was not a scientist or mathematician like Nicholas Copernicus, and the persecution of astronomer Galileo, a couple of decades later are indicative of the Church's political authority under severe pressure.  It is silly to cite this as the paradigmatic 'science v. religion' struggle.  It is a singular historical event within the context of Europe .               Both Dawkins and Hitchens are being totally dishonest in their discussions against religion. Dawkins is addressing the Creationists exclusively, and Hitchens's arguments apply to the Jehadists only.  Neither has the courage and intelligence of Karen Armstrong who discards the construction of the binary opposition of 'science v. religion' and refuses any hierarchical positioning of the two branches of knowledge.               Two, critiquing religion is a mask for communalism.  More on that later.                               Farida Majid
 
==============================



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___