"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."
Sorry to say that this is a hogwash from an intelligent woman (Farida)! While Dawkins and Hitchens methodologically argue against the creationists and Jihadists, Ms. Armstrong sings the Kumbaya song to get along with everybody. Ms. Armstrong can discard whatever she wants and put Science and Religion on the same pedestal but that does not stop our human curiosity. What is really a religious knowledge? A blind belief that can never be challenged and investigated? How can Dawkins and Hitchens be dishonest while Ms. Armstrong is an honest woman? No doubt, she is very popular amongst the believers. Is that the criteria for being an honest man/woman?
Should "Get along and go along" be our mantra?
-SD
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 9:55 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
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: jnrsr53@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:17:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
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
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: jnrsr53@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:17:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
I meant to say that religion-peddlers are shaping current affairs. Thanks.--- On Wed, 6/27/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
|
__._,_.___