Banner Advertiser

Monday, July 30, 2012

[mukto-mona] 2001-2006 : BNP-Jamat Misrule>>>>>>>>bonus is the comparison witl AL [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Sitangshu Guha included below]

2001-2006 : BNP-Jamat Misrule

 

The five year-rule of the BNP-Jamaat (2001-2001) was featured by rigged elections, tyranny and repression of opposition activists. It was followed by rise of extremist terrorism in the name of Islam that was overtly sponsored by the State. Terrorist organizations having direct link with Al-Quaeda and other Pakistani and Afghan militants such as Harkat-ul-Jihad al Islami (HUJI); Jagroto Muslim Janota Bangladesh (JMJB) so on and so forth began to rule the country as a parallel force. They publicly tortured and killed hundreds of people, most of whom were opposition political activists.

 

The BNP-Jamaat misrule was also marked by torture, rape of women and girls, torture and maiming of thousands of opposition (AL) activists and attack and repression of journalists and minority communities particularly Hindus and Christians. Many worship places including Baniapara Church in Gopalganj was bomb-attacked. The terrorists backed by BNP-Jamaat Government went thus far as to launch an attack on the then British High Commissioner Mr. Anwar Chawdhury during his visit to the holy shrine of Hazrat Shah Jalal (Rh) in Sylhet. They launched several dastardly attacks on cultural and opposition activists. As many as 24,000 Awami League leaders, activists and supporters were killed, tortured and maimed by the BNP-Jamaat terrorists. 

 

When their tenure came to an end (mid 2006), the BNP started hatching conspiracy to come into power again by arranging an election staged by their own men in the form of a so called caretaker government. They raised the retiring age of Supreme Court judges with an intention to appoint their loyal Justice K M Hasan as Chief Adviser of the Caretaker Government. On the other hand, they appointed another BNP-loyal judge M A Aziz as chief election commissioner.

 

Not only this, they appointed a number of BNP-Jamaat loyalists in the election commission as election commissioners. Worst ever, they made an electoral roll where more than 12.3 million fake voters were registered. This resulted in a mass-upsurge against the BNP-Jamaat regime and the chaotic situation led to the one-eleven situations as the BNP's loyal president Mr. Yaaz Uddin Ahmed took over the charge of the head of caretaker government along with his holding the chair of the President. Eventually, the army intervened and formed the care-taker government headed by Dr. Fakharuddin Ahmed to run the country for two years (2007-2008). Within few months, this very caretaker government backed by army, appeared to be a power grabbing one and intended to remain in power for long. Moreover, they harassed political leaders and business persons in the name of the so called anti corruption drive and mock trials, most of which were later on quashed by the Supreme Court. They (army backed caretaker government) put the leaders of the two major parties into jail and they plotted to send them to exile. Ultimately their plan was foiled by the popular movement organized by the Awami League and other democratic parties. The army-backed caretaker government was under heavy pressure from both within and outside the country. Eventually, they had to organize the election on 28th December 2008 where the Awami League obtained a landmark victory and formed the Government in January 2009.

 

After taking charge, the Awami League Government started to implement people's mandate from the election as reflected in its – Vision 2021, where good governance, social safety net, freedom of the press, protection of human rights, improved power supply and technology oriented/enabled service delivery system (well known as Digital Bangladesh) to ensure services to the people's doorstep in a responsive manner.

 

Let's now have a comparative scenario of the style of governance of the two regimes (BNP-Jamaat's 2001-2006 and AL Government's 2009 onwards . . .) :

 

2001-2006

(BNP-Jamaat regime)

2009-Onwards

(AL led Alliance regime)

·        Atrocity, repression, killing, rape and maiming of 24,000 AL leaders/supporters immediately after winning over the election.

·        AL did not rejoice victory with procession to avoid any kind of post-election violence. No reprehensive attack was made on the BNP activists.

·        Corruption reached the peak level due to the vandalism, nepotism and overwhelming corruption in every sector. Bangladesh topped number 1 in the TIB Corruption Perception Index for consecutive five years. To note, BNP installed only electric polls, but no power generation was followed. Millions of dollars were looted from public exchequer in the name of installing electric poll (in Bengali, popularly known as KHAMBA).

·        Anti corruption commission has been reshuffled and working more freely than before. Corruption has been minimized and now Bangladesh is no more ranking top in the TIB's Corruption Perception Index. In the last three years, electricity generation rose up to 8,049 MW till date, which was only 4,583MW during the last period of BNP's regime and 4,931MW during the caretaker regime during 2007-08).

·        BNP-Jamaat strongly repressed freedom of information and other democratic institutions. They repressed journalists in all possible manners. 13 journalists were murdered by BNP-Jamaat terrorists.

·        AL Government has constituted the Right to Information Commission, National Human Rights Commission, made opposition MPs Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committees for ensuring better accountability. Now the journalists and media are enjoying uninterrupted freedom.

·        BNP-Jamaat paid no respect to human rights and individual liberty. They initiated the infamous Operation Clean Heart and killed numbers of opposition activists in army operation. Even, the installed the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) was their action, the main activity of which was mostly to repress opposition leaders and activists. 

·        The AL led grand alliance government conducted no such operation as done by BNP. The Rapid Action Battalion is now working more professionally. Till date, the RAB has apprehended 872 religious militants (JMB and HUJI etc.), and 374 outlawed extremists. It has, thus far, recovered as many as 9,520 illegal weapons and 83,234 illegal ammunitions.     

·        During exchange of fire between armed criminals and RAB members, 340 criminals died during the first three years of BNP regime. This number was 206 during the two years of caretaker government (2007-08).

·        During the last three years of the present government, the figure has dropped down to 177.

·        The rise of extremist religious terrorism reached an unprecedented level during BNP-Jamaat regime. State sponsored terrorists like Bangla Bhai, Shayokh Abdur Rahman, Mufti Hannan and many others were ruling in different parts of the country in public with even police protection in some occasions. Even then, their stalwart state minister for home affairs Mr. Lutfuzzaman Babar denied the facts saying that Bangla Bhai is the creation of the media. Several heinous attacks were made by these extremist and religious terrorist groups, which, among others, included, the 21st August grenade attack on the then opposition leader Shekh Hasina and Awami League leaders, in which 24 including Mrs Ivy Rahman (wife of current President Mr. Zillur Rahman) died on the spot. Hundreds of AL workers, supporters and common people still carrying the splinters that came out of the grenade charge. Bombs were charged at a cinema theater in Mymensing district, a one-ton bomb was recovered from under ground at Kotalipara meeting place of the then opposition leader Shekh Hasina. The Islamic militants backed by BNP-Jamaat establishments carried out a series bomb blast in 63 districts. 10 trucks of huge illegal arms and ammunitions were recovered in Chittagong, in which the BNP-Jamaat high ups had direct linkage.    

·        There is no such incident that is taking place now under the AL-led grand alliance government. The government is firmly controlling the religious terrorists and steps have been taken to root out all kinds of terrorist activities from the country. All religious and cultural festivities are now being observed peacefully across the country. Whereas the BNP-Jamaat led government created fear and a reign of terror among public mind and had no commitment for social development, the present government is more exposed to pro-people administration. 

·        The BNP-Jamaat regime created several interruptions to the judicial process of the country. To conceal the facts from the public, they staged a 'Joz Mia' (a name) drama wherein they influenced the judicial magistrate and obtained his false confessional statement saying that he (Joz Mia) was responsible for the 21st August grenade Attack. They appointed a judge in the Supreme Court who had fake legal certificates.

·        Now, judiciary is totally separate and functioning  independently. Separate pay commission and judicial service commission have been constituted following the constitutional provisions.

·        The BNP-Jamaat played no role to upgrade and modernize the country's education system. They only emphasized on the Madrasa education wherefrom religious extremist and militant elements were created, nurtured and trained up.

·        AL government has made a historic move to formulate national education policy wherein the Madrasa education has been mainstreamed. The curricula of the Madrasa education has been modernized by inclusion of science and technology and literary subjects therein.

·        Social safety net was not that much focused in the governance system of the BNP-Jamaat regime. During their first term in 1991-96, a total of 18 farmers were killed by police and terrorists of party in power, only for raising demands for fertilizer. Their student front (Chhattro Dal and Chhattro Shibir) were synonymous with terror forces, who committed eve teasing, murder and rape of women during the post election period. The people's right to information was oppressed as the BNP government in 1992 refused to join the free optical fiber link under a false pretext of national security. Moreover, they allowed only one mobile company to operate in the market and passing information was highly costly during that time.  

·        AL-led grand alliance has organized its programmes and activities to the social development and ensuring social safety net for the general people of the country. Numerous social safety-net programmes have been chalked out and now being implemented in full swing. Farmers are now being given a 'fair price card' by which they can obtain fertilizer very easily. Food security is the highest priority of the government. Agricultural and related information are now available in the mobile phones. Six mobile phone companies are now operating and paving the way towards mobile banking, easy transfer of money, health services, raising awareness about rights so on and so forth. The present government is also highly careful about development and protecting rights of women, children and indigenous communities.


Attachment(s) from Sitangshu Guha

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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--faith in God is much more solidly grounded on rationality



I hate to impose science on faith mongers.  These people can't find inconsistencies in their own religious scriptures.  In my view, the believers in religion should live like the Amish community does and not accept and use anything that marvels of modern science offers.  They should also refrain from imposing their views on others who don't accept their creeds.

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM, <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
 

Dear sirs, a long debate is going on. It is essentially between  faith in God and atheism. Both have their own arguements.But the arguments of atheism, in my view, are weak like Big Bang and evolution explain creation. They can not explain why Big bang or evolution happened..

 

On the other hand the argument for God id more solid .It rationally explains creation and gives us a purpose in life. If some body says my house has been accidentally or automatically come into existence, my mind does not accept that. However if another person says my house has been planned and made by some body it appeals me.

Shah Abdul Hannan

 


From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kamal Das
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:45 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 

 

  Religion, by it's broad definition, is anything that holds a society together.  Anarchism,Atheism, Communism, Marxism etc. are religions by this definition.  By the narrow definition, however, it is a set of beliefs that need God as the final explanation of all the riddles.  These sets of beliefs were not supposed to change with time, though they did.  Science grows at the expense of religion.  My statement that many leading scientists couldn't question religious beliefs is to point at their limitations.  In no way it subscribes to the view that 'religion and science can coexist in this world'.  Nature, in the religious view, is not the creator of all the species; it requires the intervention of God(s) for creation, propagation, and destruction of anything according to them.  Recall the concepts of Purush and Prakriti, the latter is nature while the former is God.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 




__._,_.___


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



Religious affiliation doesn't follow any logic.  For example, a Christian scientist, who doubts on the existence of soul, may believe in resurrection of Jesus Christ; other contradictions also exist in the lives of other scientists.  Religious beliefs are signs of arrested mental development.  Ghosts and Gods seem to have disappeared in the post-scientific age, not exactly a sign of the 'coexistence' of religion and science.

Only a believer would find science in  'Bhagawat Gita'.  It is a fiction concocted after Claudius Ptolemy recorded his observations on cosmic events.  In fact, most of the Hindu epics and religious books are fictions written by Badarayana, under the pen name of Vyas Dev.



On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


The claim that science cannot coexist with religion, was valid during Copernicus/Galileo time, but not anymore. I believe - most scientists today can retain religious affiliations, if they want to, while carrying out their scientific works; it will not affect their works at all.

            

'Purush' represents the 'trigger' for a change and 'Prakriti' represents the 'vessel' where the change actually occurs.

 

In the shortest view of life-form on earth, Purush and Prakriti could be 'seed' and 'soil' or 'male' and 'female' species, respectively. In the longest view, I would follow the hypothesis of Nobel Laureate Professor Harold Ure that I mentioned before. According to that hypothesis - a lightening-spark could have induced a chemical reaction in a shallow pool of water on earth surface, leading to the formation of amino acid that initiated the life-form on earth. He verified his hypothesis in his lab. The lightening-spark, in this case, will represent 'Purush' and the pool will represent 'Prakriti.'  I do not see any implausibility in this assertion.

 

Let me cite another example of how science and religion can coexist. This time I will use a Hindu religious book, Bhagabat-Gita. Arjun was not convinced by the advices of Shree-Krishna, the incarnation of God on earth. At that point, Shree-Krishna had to reveal his 'Bishwarup (Universe)' to him.  On viewing that image, Arjun lost consciousness immediately.

 

Now, what's the message behind this story? To me – it's not whether I believe in the story or not, it's the story behind the story. I can interpret it as follows: Shree-Krishna showed Arjun that He was nothing but the Universe. In other words, Universe is God, and God is Universe.

 

The bottom line is - we must find the right perspective of God if we want to get rid of prejudices from religious views. I am fully aware of the fact that - we won't be able to explain everything with scientific interpretations. Then again, we don't have to; because -nobody is following everything in the scripture as is. 
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Sun, 7/29/12, 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: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:44 PM


 
  Religion, by it's broad definition, is anything that holds a society together.  Anarchism,Atheism, Communism, Marxism etc. are religions by this definition.  By the narrow definition, however, it is a set of beliefs that need God as the final explanation of all the riddles.  These sets of beliefs were not supposed to change with time, though they did.  Science grows at the expense of religion.  My statement that many leading scientists couldn't question religious beliefs is to point at their limitations.  In no way it subscribes to the view that 'religion and science can coexist in this world'.  Nature, in the religious view, is not the creator of all the species; it requires the intervention of God(s) for creation, propagation, and destruction of anything according to them.  Recall the concepts of Purush and Prakriti, the latter is nature while the former is God.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dr. Das Said: Many leading scientists retain their belief in the religious traditions they were born in, e.g.,  Newton

So, you are saying that - religion and science can coexist in this world. Then, which part of my previous statement is not true?

In fact, historically science and religion has been existing side-by-side. When we can free our mind from the sphere of the religious blind-faith, we can explain religious views with the scientific knowledge. As I said before - nature is the creator of all species, and if I interpret nature as the God, where am I going wrong?

Jiten Roy

--- On Sat, 7/28/12, 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: Saturday, July 28, 2012, 9:09 PM


 
"In this world - science and religion can coexist at ease, and we can find scientific explanation of what we believe in. "

  The first half of this sentence is historically untrue, and the second half is not totally true either.  As the religious institutions grew weaker fighting each other, and science went on producing marvels, common people like us dared to raise questions on religions.  Many leading scientists retain their belief in the religious traditions they were born in, e.g.,  Newton was a believer in Arian heresy, Einstein wouldn't accept the logic behind Quantum Mechanics and say "God does not play dice" etc. Good common sense of  logical persons gets drowned by gospels of mystics. 

I also like the GBS comment quoted by Mr. Deeldar, though I would like to know which 'great truths' he referred to.  I would also like to place Oscar Wilde's observation on him for the consumption of muktomonas. "Bernard Shaw is an excellent man; he has not an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him"

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
That was my counter question to you, Dr. Das. Anyway, the best quote is the one Shah Deeldar is using regularly. I like it very much.

 

A scientist's job is to seek the truth; if it leads to questioning a faith or raising the question in the mind of a believer, so be it. That consideration shall not stop discovery. That was the essence of my questioning. 

 

Characteristics that make us different from animals are our intelligence and ability to express our mind. Therefore, there should not be room for blind-faith in the minds of intelligent species. Terms 'believer' and 'non-believer' do not mean much to me. I think everybody is believer. Most important point is - what we believe in. In this world - science and religion can coexist at ease, and we can find scientific explanation of what we believe in. People who work in the field of Theology are questioning their faith all the time to find the truth about their belief. That's how we can get to the truth. As I have mentioned before - the term 'blasphemy' was introduced to protect the vested interest of a religious class by maintaining the status quo forever.

 

Thanks.

 

Jiten Roy 

 

--- On Sat, 7/28/12, 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: Saturday, July 28, 2012, 8:14 AM


 
"blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery?"

This is a misquotation.  What I wrote was, " It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."  A scientist and a researcher always questions his observation, a believer sticks to observations made by others ages ago.  Efforts of a researcher to spread his 'non belief' to a believer may be compared to casting pearls in a marshy grass land.

I hope, I have made my comment comprehensible.


On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Is it blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery? If it is, you have to stop all scientific discoveries, as most of discoveries go against religious beliefs. 

I gave my realistic interpretation of God, and, in the end, I concluded that scriptures may be right, but - our interpretation may be wrong. Frankly, I do not know what Dr. Das meant by his comment.

Jiten Roy
 

--- On Fri, 7/27/12, 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: Friday, July 27, 2012, 6:35 PM


 
I would not turn the observation of "it is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith" by Dr. Das into an advice to be followed.
 
I would rather turn George Bernard Shaw's observation of "all great truths begin as blasphemies", as quoted by Mr. Deeldar, into an advice. That is, commit blasphemies, if you have to, to uncover the truths.
 
However, since blasphemy is such a sensitive matter for the believers, I think rational people could avoid publicly questioning beliefs that look innocent. Proactive attacks on hateful beliefs can also be avoided. However, actual acts of hatred should be corrected and/or punished; there arguments like, "oh I (or we) did it because my (or our) religion taught me (or us) to do it" should not be accepted.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=======================================

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."
 
I think that is a great advice!

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=qrahman@netscape.net>
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
 
====================================
 
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 <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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

__,_._,___