Some good points, but a classic strawman argument. Religious beliefs have been used by many people to justify slavery, oppression, war. But, so to have those same beliefs inspired great acts of selfless charity, love and a striving for justice.
Science has freed humanity from many its irrational behaviors and habits. But, it has also resulted in dehumanizing actions.
I agree that science sometimes presents humanity with very complex ethical problems and that it can be used for immoral or oppressive ends. However, I still need scientists to find a cure for AIDS, cancer or the common cold and therefore on a scale of one to ten, with one being the least necessary, I would give science eight.
In the post-industrial developed world in which I happened to live charity and justice need not be religiously inspired and therefore religion doesn’t even make it on the scale.
For some people, religion is part of their identity, like it with with Muslims. But it’s not the same with Christians, for example. In Islamic civilizations, religion has much more power.
I’m a Lebaneese of christian religion currently studying at the american University of Beirut.I which to point out that it is christians, and not non-shias, that like to see themselves as phoeniciens rather than arab. In fact many shias also have a far stronger affinity to Iran(which is persian not arab, and whith whom they share the same religion) than to any other arab country.
Allow me that to tell u that some of your statements concerning Islam is rather overinflated and overly emotional and non-rational. This is the same essence that feeds the recklesness of Bush’s policy in the Middle East which after almost six years have leaded to nothing but more chaos and problems. You can add to that a ignorance to the extreme complexities of the social tissue of the Middle East, of which Lebanon is a striking example.
As for secularism being the basis for any stable democratic and just system, I totally agree… Western countries didn’t have to face this fact, having a overwhelming majority of the (continued)
(continued)population having the same religion. On the countrary Lebanon can be a fairly good argument for such a claim, with all its religious diversity-there are 14 different religious community! none of which are a majority
My heart goes out to this woman. Hell is a place you go to for eternity when you die if you are bad according to religion. I beg to differ. This woman was born there and managed to escape. There is much evil in the world and a great deal of it is perpetrated by those who peddle the word of GOD. If there is an all powerful being I’m sure he/she would be quite capable of spreading the “word” to us all personally. The old “FAITH” thing just doesn’t wash. The violent and dictatorial nature of Islam in particular is the single most dangerous force in the world today. But I have “FAITH”, faith that the free thinking of us have the greater resource to prevail over the mindless drones who follow teachings and preachings of the false prophets. And to Azar Majedi, I salute you miss for your courage to stand up to the real devil.
ur articles makes no sense in separating science and religion, its just words(labels). Every human being needs some form of belief to hold on to sanity, u found it in science
some find it in so-called religion. even though u may have witnessed(experienced) these beliefs ,u still havent seen it all proved before ur eyes,to elaborate on that, assume the earth is 4.6 billion years old, u’ve witnessed first hand at most 80years of earth, rest is assumption,guesses(even though calculated intelligently or otherwise) and, I guarantee that only 1% of your belief in science has been proven(actually witnessed), still ur willing to bet on the unknown 99%. Thats your faith in science.
same as for my religion here. we’re on same ground. your religion is evolutionary science. look deeply in ur heart, u’ll find creationist, id and evolutionary science all fighting for political victory. clearly, u cannot dissociate from creationist or id’ers all sides of same coin.
First of all, I dont understand why the hindu history needs to be included in text books as this itself gives rise to racism. Then I have a hard time to understand what is the purpose behind having the four caste system rule in textbooks? It’ll be really great if I can get answers for these for my own understanding.
Two examples of mail veiling suggest themselves as examples:
1. The Tuareg in north Africa practice male veiling. Would anyone in Britain tolerate the suggestion that Tuareg men use ID photographs with their faces obscured?
2. The Ku Kux Klan. Some of the earliest attempts to combat the rising power of the First Klan (1865-72) were bans on wearing masks in public.
I have not major point here, except to suggest the mental exercise of considering these.
The whole write up of Meera Nanda is full of controversy. Perhaps she did not know about the Ayurveda medical science, even the basic of the Ayurveda. It is only a journlisitc chat with her apeasment of soul, which I think is sick from inert. Some writers writes merely for oppostion because they have already in their mind to oppose the subjects matters. This is prejudiced article and merely for opposing Ayurveda for opposition. I totally disagree to Meera Nanda orguments, because the reasonings are very weak and very common,which can be listen in the bazar and streets and which every one knows. The earth reality is something else, which she donot know. I will advise her that she can write in better style, but she should go to the downtrodden step of the society and find there the truth.
However I dont accept the weak plea and discussion which she have written in the article.
Wherever women are required to wear veils, so should men.
If the issue is that of modesty, then men should be bound by that same issue also and therefore they should wear the veil too.
However, my opinion is that nobody should wear a veil. The reason being that all individuals should open their faces to the universe and bask in its wonder and glory.
Some, if not a good number of those women wear that veiled of their own will, they say that nobody forces them to. Some others say that it is because Allah tells them so and nobody has the right to judge Allah.
The issue is really complex and not merely a matter of being obliged.
Anyway it is their civilization and who are we to interfere and judge them.
On this topic, as in many others of this nature, I find it hard to judge either side of this debate. I see and agree with the points made on both view points.
I feel for and stand up for women that are forced to ascribe to these practices against their own will however if the woman is choosing to practice and display her faith and personal beliefs in this manner, Who can judge them? Perhaps they know what jobs and experiences they are giving up, but to them it is a small price for the faith they have in Allah or the pleasure that they receive from honoring tradition.
Regarding Helen Gray’s piece on the veil: F—, yeah.
It’s good to see a rational, secular, feminist viewpoint on the issue, instead of a knee-jerk “only Western culture oppresses women” reaction that absolves cultures within Western boundaries of the same standards of decency and humanity that are otherwise put forth as being “universal.”
Nowhere in the Hitchens article ostensibly quoted does it say anything about the Saddam regime being a fun park. It seems to me that your site is the mirror image of what you find wrong with postmodernism
Muhammad was Leader of Black Muslims who campaigned for independence for Black Americans (1897-1975). He was not born in the first century.
Mohammad was born in the sixth century, not the first as was the intention of the claim in the article “Things CNN Will Never Tell You About Religion.”
Makes one wander about the validity of the other assertions. People who are capable of such fundamental errors should not denigrate the beliefs of others.
You are not the first person to state here that “Mohammad was born in the sixth century”. And this is not the first reply pointing out that you’ve missed the point because there is a Muslim calendar in which “(y)ears are counted since the Hijra, that is, Mohammed’s emigration to Medina in AD 622” (http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-islamic.html) . So all of Muhammed’s life after the Hijra occurred in the first century.
g bruno, the correctness of middle class English drapery is probably not a univisal self-evident truth. I am not sure what Trinny and Susanna would make of it anyway! Anyway, I’m leaving the country if it is!
However, to refer to the face veil used by some muslim women as just a piece of cloth is a little bit like saying that the Orangemen marchers at Drumcree are just a group of protestant men (are there any women among them?) walking down the road in their sunday best.
“So all of Muhammed’s life after the Hijra occurred in the first century.”
The Khmer Rouge started a new calender. The French Revolutionaries started a new calender. Do we say that Pol Pot and Robbespierre were from the first century?
That’s a pretty weak cop out. Most people go by the common era dating system that puts Mohammed in the seventh century.
Also, how much slaughter and misery has been brought to the Earth by secularists like Pol Pot? Religion may be the cause of much suffering, but atheism is no panacea.
As for “Most people go by the common era “, they don’t in Muslim countries. It’s appropriate when talking about the founder of a religion that has almost 1 billion followers to use the calendar based on it’s founding events. And, worst of all to some negative commenters here, it stretches the mind, expands the mental horizons, to think a moment about things from other people’s perspectives. But we must never do that, must we?
http://bra.boom.ru
Some good points, but a classic strawman argument. Religious beliefs have been used by many people to justify slavery, oppression, war. But, so to have those same beliefs inspired great acts of selfless charity, love and a striving for justice.
Science has freed humanity from many its irrational behaviors and habits. But, it has also resulted in dehumanizing actions.
I agree that science sometimes presents humanity with very complex ethical problems and that it can be used for immoral or oppressive ends. However, I still need scientists to find a cure for AIDS, cancer or the common cold and therefore on a scale of one to ten, with one being the least necessary, I would give science eight.
In the post-industrial developed world in which I happened to live charity and justice need not be religiously inspired and therefore religion doesn’t even make it on the scale.
For some people, religion is part of their identity, like it with with Muslims. But it’s not the same with Christians, for example. In Islamic civilizations, religion has much more power.
I’m a Lebaneese of christian religion currently studying at the american University of Beirut.I which to point out that it is christians, and not non-shias, that like to see themselves as phoeniciens rather than arab. In fact many shias also have a far stronger affinity to Iran(which is persian not arab, and whith whom they share the same religion) than to any other arab country.
Allow me that to tell u that some of your statements concerning Islam is rather overinflated and overly emotional and non-rational. This is the same essence that feeds the recklesness of Bush’s policy in the Middle East which after almost six years have leaded to nothing but more chaos and problems. You can add to that a ignorance to the extreme complexities of the social tissue of the Middle East, of which Lebanon is a striking example.
As for secularism being the basis for any stable democratic and just system, I totally agree… Western countries didn’t have to face this fact, having a overwhelming majority of the (continued)
(continued)population having the same religion. On the countrary Lebanon can be a fairly good argument for such a claim, with all its religious diversity-there are 14 different religious community! none of which are a majority
My heart goes out to this woman. Hell is a place you go to for eternity when you die if you are bad according to religion. I beg to differ. This woman was born there and managed to escape. There is much evil in the world and a great deal of it is perpetrated by those who peddle the word of GOD. If there is an all powerful being I’m sure he/she would be quite capable of spreading the “word” to us all personally. The old “FAITH” thing just doesn’t wash. The violent and dictatorial nature of Islam in particular is the single most dangerous force in the world today. But I have “FAITH”, faith that the free thinking of us have the greater resource to prevail over the mindless drones who follow teachings and preachings of the false prophets. And to Azar Majedi, I salute you miss for your courage to stand up to the real devil.
ur articles makes no sense in separating science and religion, its just words(labels). Every human being needs some form of belief to hold on to sanity, u found it in science
some find it in so-called religion. even though u may have witnessed(experienced) these beliefs ,u still havent seen it all proved before ur eyes,to elaborate on that, assume the earth is 4.6 billion years old, u’ve witnessed first hand at most 80years of earth, rest is assumption,guesses(even though calculated intelligently or otherwise) and, I guarantee that only 1% of your belief in science has been proven(actually witnessed), still ur willing to bet on the unknown 99%. Thats your faith in science.
same as for my religion here. we’re on same ground. your religion is evolutionary science. look deeply in ur heart, u’ll find creationist, id and evolutionary science all fighting for political victory. clearly, u cannot dissociate from creationist or id’ers all sides of same coin.
First of all, I dont understand why the hindu history needs to be included in text books as this itself gives rise to racism. Then I have a hard time to understand what is the purpose behind having the four caste system rule in textbooks? It’ll be really great if I can get answers for these for my own understanding.
Thanks.
Nilesh Raut
nilesh23@gmail.com
Helen Gray/the Veil
Two examples of mail veiling suggest themselves as examples:
1. The Tuareg in north Africa practice male veiling. Would anyone in Britain tolerate the suggestion that Tuareg men use ID photographs with their faces obscured?
2. The Ku Kux Klan. Some of the earliest attempts to combat the rising power of the First Klan (1865-72) were bans on wearing masks in public.
I have not major point here, except to suggest the mental exercise of considering these.
The whole write up of Meera Nanda is full of controversy. Perhaps she did not know about the Ayurveda medical science, even the basic of the Ayurveda. It is only a journlisitc chat with her apeasment of soul, which I think is sick from inert. Some writers writes merely for oppostion because they have already in their mind to oppose the subjects matters. This is prejudiced article and merely for opposing Ayurveda for opposition. I totally disagree to Meera Nanda orguments, because the reasonings are very weak and very common,which can be listen in the bazar and streets and which every one knows. The earth reality is something else, which she donot know. I will advise her that she can write in better style, but she should go to the downtrodden step of the society and find there the truth.
However I dont accept the weak plea and discussion which she have written in the article.
Wherever women are required to wear veils, so should men.
If the issue is that of modesty, then men should be bound by that same issue also and therefore they should wear the veil too.
However, my opinion is that nobody should wear a veil. The reason being that all individuals should open their faces to the universe and bask in its wonder and glory.
It’s a spoof, guys ::-)
Mike Cherrill,
Some, if not a good number of those women wear that veiled of their own will, they say that nobody forces them to. Some others say that it is because Allah tells them so and nobody has the right to judge Allah.
The issue is really complex and not merely a matter of being obliged.
Anyway it is their civilization and who are we to interfere and judge them.
On this topic, as in many others of this nature, I find it hard to judge either side of this debate. I see and agree with the points made on both view points.
I feel for and stand up for women that are forced to ascribe to these practices against their own will however if the woman is choosing to practice and display her faith and personal beliefs in this manner, Who can judge them? Perhaps they know what jobs and experiences they are giving up, but to them it is a small price for the faith they have in Allah or the pleasure that they receive from honoring tradition.
Regarding Helen Gray’s piece on the veil: F—, yeah.
It’s good to see a rational, secular, feminist viewpoint on the issue, instead of a knee-jerk “only Western culture oppresses women” reaction that absolves cultures within Western boundaries of the same standards of decency and humanity that are otherwise put forth as being “universal.”
Props to you.
Re: “Poseurs of the World Unite”
Wood demolishes them. It is a sad fact that people are drawing salaries, research funding for such hilarious nonsense
Nowhere in the Hitchens article ostensibly quoted does it say anything about the Saddam regime being a fun park. It seems to me that your site is the mirror image of what you find wrong with postmodernism
Hoffman’s piece on religion is unsurprising to me.
After all, all religions are blackmail, and all religions kill, enslave and torture.
It is just that a lot of peole refuse to face the facts.
Helen Gray despises a pieco of cloth, the veil. She also despises the removal of another piece of cloth, the shirt.
How nice to be so certain of the correctness of one’s position.
Off with her trousers! and off with Jack Straws trousers!
Or is the correctness of middle class English drapery a unirvisal self-evident truth?
Muhammad was Leader of Black Muslims who campaigned for independence for Black Americans (1897-1975). He was not born in the first century.
Mohammad was born in the sixth century, not the first as was the intention of the claim in the article “Things CNN Will Never Tell You About Religion.”
Makes one wander about the validity of the other assertions. People who are capable of such fundamental errors should not denigrate the beliefs of others.
Looking at the Kenan Malik article http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/muslim_survey/muslims.html that you linked to, my heart sank when I read the scene-setting by the site: “Journalist Kenan Malik known for his controversial views on Islamophobia …”
What a looking-glass world we now live in! It’s the very concept of “Islamophobia” that is controversial.
Chris G:
You are not the first person to state here that “Mohammad was born in the sixth century”. And this is not the first reply pointing out that you’ve missed the point because there is a Muslim calendar in which “(y)ears are counted since the Hijra, that is, Mohammed’s emigration to Medina in AD 622” (http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-islamic.html) . So all of Muhammed’s life after the Hijra occurred in the first century.
g bruno, the correctness of middle class English drapery is probably not a univisal self-evident truth. I am not sure what Trinny and Susanna would make of it anyway! Anyway, I’m leaving the country if it is!
However, to refer to the face veil used by some muslim women as just a piece of cloth is a little bit like saying that the Orangemen marchers at Drumcree are just a group of protestant men (are there any women among them?) walking down the road in their sunday best.
Joan
“So all of Muhammed’s life after the Hijra occurred in the first century.”
The Khmer Rouge started a new calender. The French Revolutionaries started a new calender. Do we say that Pol Pot and Robbespierre were from the first century?
That’s a pretty weak cop out. Most people go by the common era dating system that puts Mohammed in the seventh century.
Also, how much slaughter and misery has been brought to the Earth by secularists like Pol Pot? Religion may be the cause of much suffering, but atheism is no panacea.
John Schwartz:
It’s not a cop-out, it’s an explanation.
As for “Most people go by the common era “, they don’t in Muslim countries. It’s appropriate when talking about the founder of a religion that has almost 1 billion followers to use the calendar based on it’s founding events. And, worst of all to some negative commenters here, it stretches the mind, expands the mental horizons, to think a moment about things from other people’s perspectives. But we must never do that, must we?