We have so many tolerant people in our society does not prove that religious virtue created that condition. If you think so, you are either not thinking critically or you are naïve. -----I agree with you. If we think deeply at our own lives, most of our good virtues, we have, came from elsewhere (our education, family influences, human instinct, human properties, etc.), not from our religious influences. I believe so, because - most of us spend our lives out of the religious sphere of influence, yet we get all those qualities.----I agree. I also believe that - an atheist possesses much more good qualities than a devout religious man. This is because - the mind of an atheist is free and unperturbed by religious prejudices and influences. Therefore, it will be totally wrong to credit religion for our good qualities. Let's analyze further. -----I don't think so. Think about all the atheist communists. Do (did) they really have all good human qualities? If someone is inducted to a brand new religion, for the first time, pretty soon, he/she will start to develop some antagonistic feelings toward others in the competing faiths, which he/she did not have before the induction. This phenomenon is well visible in religious converts; they are not only antagonistic, but also hostile towards others in different faiths. In other words, neo-converts are much more radical than other followers. Why is that? ------Any statistical support? Or has your opinion been influenced by what you learnt in your childhood: a Hindu converted to Isalm consumes proportionately more beef? What do you think about Mohammad Ali, Steve Jobbs, and others. Do they really hate the religions they were born into? Religion is an ideological institution (clan), just like a political institution. The battle is for its space, growth, and dominance.---That's right. It is true for any movement---for instance, cultural and literary? Antagonistic messages keep a religion vibrant, without which it may face the existential threat. The tolerance for others in the competing faiths is not a winning strategy for religious hegemony. Is it?----That is the thinking of the fanatics and fundamentalists. They can befool the followers for some time. "Hegemony" is a word that does not fit well to relion! I believe, Vivekananda's new religion based on human compassion for all mankind, did not succeed as much for its all encompassing ideology; it's not strong enough message for continued growth and hegemony. ----- Vivekananda is very succesful. He reinterpreted the Upanishads to cover the duty towards the hungry, illiterate, neglected, superstitious, and chained people. If he has failed it is because he has been misunderstood. My opinion is in agreement with what Tapan Roychaudhury believes vide his recent article published in the fortnightly Desh. Successful religions, therefore, teach their followers that - they are the right ones to go to haven; others are straight going to hell. This is the universal message of any religion. This message teaches how to demean and dehumanize the followers of other faiths. ---------But the practiced religion does not take into cognizance many fundamentalist views that a religion offers. Have you ever thought why the head of the government of a Muslim country visits the Durga Mandap to express his solidarity with the Hindus? If you have the fundamentalist view (very much like the fundamentalist view of a Muslim), you cannot explain the phenomenon. Why does a Hindu-majority country make a law discarding Hindu casteism? What I am trying to say here is that - religion, for its survival, will always divide people and induce hatred and hostility within mankind, which would have been otherwise peaceful.------Buddha, Ramksishna, Lalon do not do it. Why do you pick those who do it? Jiten Roy --- On Thu, 2/9/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:11 PM
Well, when I talk about "How to follow religions correctly", I certainly mean what should be the "practiced versions of religions." To practice religions like civilized human beings who care about harmonious coexistence of all innocent people, followers of most religions have to edit their religions and/or ignore some aspects of their religions to fit their common sense and what Dr. Roy called "human compassion." I am sure Mr. Chakrabarty and I have seen innocent people who actually have very little knowledge of their religions. They realize that their God has also created people who do not have the same thoughts about God. They could see that it would be wrong for them to hate, discriminate against, or commit atrocities against other kinds of people. These people are good primarily because of their good common sense, not because of their religions. I have no argument with Mr. Chakrabarty about good practiced versions of religions. However, "Every religion teaches tolerance about other religions" is a wrong statement if we go by what quite a few of the religions are by their books. Sukhamaya Bain
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
- Both Jiten Roy and Sukhamaya Bain need to read my message on the "practiced" version of a religion. Peaceful coexistence is not a myth (exampe, Hindus vs Muslims in Bengal). Peace has sometimes been broken by nasty politics. During communal riots the members of the two different religious communities give shelter to one another. We just need to reflect on the past and the present as well.
- Religion is not a unique thing. It has infinite versions. There are infinite levels of religious belief. If you want to program your GPS, make sure where you want to go, in other words, which version of religion is your destination.
- Here you go Mr. Roy: "Whatever tolerance we see is due to societal laws, and out of human compassion." That is what I am talking about: this is the practiced religion. You have mentioned only two determinants. There are many more forces that tend to keep religions universally appealing. That helps build communal harmony. But there is always a risk.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
Religion is like a GPS device, if you follow the turn-by-turn direction of it, you will end up in a predefined culture. This part is well tested and verified. Anything else is just guesswork or pipedream. Religion, being a GPS system that can only take you to a predefined culture, cannot be used as a political system for a multicultural society. If you do, you will enforce a particular culture onto a multicultural society, and the outcome will be chaos and calamity in an otherwise peaceful society. When we talk about religious tolerance, we should also remember that religion is a business also. Do you think any business like competitors? Whatever tolerance we see is due to societal laws, and out of human compassion. In my view, religion is a cultural hegemony, nothing more. As a result, the history of religious coexistence is written in blood. Jiten Roy --- On Wed, 2/8/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 8:26 PM
I would like to comment on the following two comments: S. Chakrabarty: "Every religion teaches tolerance about other religions." J. Roy: "Most people believe in Allah in their own way." S. Bain: Mr. Chakrabarty is very wrong here. I like Dr. Roy's statement. Please see below for some elaborations of these two comments. None of the Abrahamic religions tolerate idolatry, which is a Hindu religious practice. People who identify themselves in terms of an Abrahamic religion, yet tolerate idolatry, do it in spite of their religion, not because of it. For example, many Christian communities in the USA allow Durga Puja in the churches because they have advanced enough to ignore some of the aspects of their religion, not because Christianity is not against idolatry. Enough reading and honest interpretations of the fundamentals of religions would show that many religions consider the following of other religions to be inappropriate, wrong, sinful and even punishable. I am personally reluctant to dig deeper into that. But I am sure Mr. Chakrabarty would find the example of idolatry that I noted here to be a valid one. While almost all Muslims use the Arabic word Allah for the English word God, the word Allah was in use long before Islam came into being. Thus, Muslims really do not have a proprietary right on the word Allah. When a Christian or a Hindu prays to God, he is praying to Allah. In fact the Arab Christians do call God Allah. A Hindu should be able to use the Arabic word Allah as much as he uses the English word God to do his way of praying, including what would be clearly un-Islamic. A Bangalee Muslim should have no problem using the word "Ishwar" instead of the word "Allah." That should not cause anyone to lose his Islam. Well, that's all for now. Sukhamaya Bain ************************************************** "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 . 
|
|
