General The Problem With Religion

[kds1980]

Most actions people claim are done for religious behavior or to "help the poor" are solely done for economic gain. Religious institutions are no different. You've been lied to by every other institution in the WORLD. Government, Financial, Anything, I'm sure you can recall an incident where you have been lied to. What makes you really believe that for some reason the religious institutions have remained untouched for the longest period of time? And, there's LOADS of scientists who do a lot of work for the poor. Your pulling straws here.

Dear s1kh

I don't understand why do you bring the the issue of sikh instituition again and again.
we all know that sikh instituitions are corrupt and it is mainly our fault.we all were intterested in making money rather than participating in that and doing sewa of community.so obviously corrupt people will take charge of it.because where there is money ,there will be a corrupt person

as far as my above answer is concerned it was to sinister who said that internet was developed for humanity and poor people.

Whether you accept it or not but most the science and scientists are only for rich and middle class people.The inventions only benefit them because they are costly.In that case i don't blame scientists because facilities for research and development are provided
by big Mnc companies and that is for their profit maximisation.So please don't try to portray scientific acheivements as something for humanity or poor people.

Oh, but what you are doing here is comparing how humans practice it and concluding that their idealogy is the one that is incorrect. In theory, Communist Manifesto is written brilliantly, it just does not allow much room for natural human actions. But, can't we blame this on the people rather than the philosophy and have people continue to try to get this philosophy to work correctly? Wouldn't we call that stupid, if people actually believed Communism would still create a stronghold after the horrendous actions it's done in the past. This is the same things I bring up against religion, but its always the believers who are saying "the philosophy is fine, its the people" "You can not judge the philosophy on how the followers practice it". That is EXACTLY how you are judging Communism, and it makes the most logical sense.

Communism is mainly an economic system while religions are concerned with spirituality.the main conflict of communism was with the capitalism in which it badly lost
on the other hand atheism was there for centuries but it never gained mass appeal.The hinduism in which there were many nastik theories but they were never successful.hindu's preferred their mythological gods rather than these theories.conclusion atheism
is as much failure as communism.

1) lol, I come to a philosophy forum and now I'm spitting "Anti-religious" propaganda. Man, these are the reasons I strayed away from such sites for a period of 2 years. THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY FORUM. Does everything have to be pro-Sikh to be admissable? I hope this site does not turn into the ridiculous hell-hole sikhsangat.com has.

Yes your post was typical anti religious propaganda .Atleast you should accept this..

 

[Sinister]

i agree that many/most religions include oppression of women. this is one of the first things that drew me to sikhism, actually... the fact that the oppression of women which is common in the judeo/christian/islamic tradition is absent in our teachings. that and our glorious stories of Mai Bhago and Mata Sundari and others.

SO? Your point being (this is rather unrelated to your original post)? If you are fishing around for some sort of agreement then, you’ve found it. Sikhism was a liberal movement well ahead of its time. (keyword: was)

However, Sikhism did not actually empower woman…they were never brought into the political sphere of the faith and in no way were they the chief engineers of Sikh philosophy. If I can recall, some Sikh guru’s practiced polygamy, which is a direct sign of the objectification of woman (something a feminist would staunchly oppose). Thus I find it unique that you call yourself a feminist and Sikh.

Travel to rural Punjab and try to examine with what extent Sikh philosophy has liberated woman. Trust me, you will be disappointed. Aside from banning the barbaric practice of satti or the stoning of woman for disobedience Sikh philosophy hasn't delivered "the decisive blow" for equality amongst the sexes. The faiths institutions are almost all run by men. The preachers, kirtan Raaghi’s are male dominated positions. Although the philosophy calls for equality it routinely fails to provide equal opportunity to women. You may say that this is a cultural aspect within the faith…but upon closer inspection it is much more deep rooted than that (even beyond my cognitive understanding).

Mai bhago and mata sundari are no more relevant than the virgin mary, Joan of Arch or one of Muhammad’s wives. Again woman in supporting roles.

however i think you're skipping over the growing number of vocal feminists from every religion who are trying to CHANGE the way people look at women through religion. do a google search on "muslim feminist" and you may be surprised at the number of women who are fighting for their rights within the religion that is probably considered the most oppressive to women.

why do you say my "claim" to being a feminist? that's kind of an insulting way to put it. i'm a woman, intelligent, in a "men's" world, with a "man's" job, what else can i be?

yes, i suppose that as a sikh, i already believe in the inborn equality of women so maybe there's no need to add "feminist" on there, but i'm american, i was a feminist before i was a sikh, so i guess it's habbit to consider myself one. feminism is a huge and complex topic, i'm not sure how you would like me to define myself so that i fit your notions of feminism, but rest assured, being a man you probably wouldn't understand anyway.

This is way off topic so I will not reply any more than is required to end this back and forth. plus we largely agree … the majority of “active” feminists are atheists…feminism is a grass-roots atheist movement that started with the enlightenment…there are feminists who exist as theists but they do not in any way make the majority.

Kelly... you are as much a Feminist as I am a Sikh. In that; you like the historical accomplishments of the movement but are weary of the overarching ideology that the majority of its members support.

Now…Run off and be a good “Sikh feminist” and don’t forget to read the book that I recommended. That should provide you with enough proof that my original statement has some weight to it.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Travel to rural Punjab and try to examine with what extent Sikh philosophy has liberated woman. Trust me, you will be disappointed. Aside from banning the barbaric practice of satti or the stoning of woman for disobedience Sikh philosophy hasn't delivered "the decisive blow" for equality amongst the sexes. The faiths institutions are almost all run by men. The preachers, kirtan Raaghi’s are male dominated positions. Although the philosophy calls for equality it routinely fails to provide equal opportunity to women. You may say that this is a cultural aspect within the faith…but upon closer inspection it is much more deep rooted than that (even beyond my cognitive understanding).

as for rural punjab... you're right, it IS a cultural issue. look at Gurdwaras in the west and you'll see women playing every major role. look at white majority gurdwaras and you'll see women in more positions of authority than men! i agree, indian culture is extremely sexist. however, sikhism as a religion is not. if sikhs in rural punjab have not yet learned how to follow their religion as it was written that is not the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the followers. and sexism is hardly the only thing they're doing against sikhism, look at the rates of infantacide, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc... these are cultural issues that need to be dealt with, not issues of religion. religion is not a magic pill that destroys evil. we as followers have to adhere to the basic tenets of our faith or there's no point.

i'm not going to touch the rest of your comments.

 

[Sinister]

look at Gurdwaras in the west and you'll see women playing every major role. look at white majority gurdwaras and you'll see women in more positions of authority than men!

:{;o:well maybe we should airlift the Golden Temple peice by peice to CALIFAAAUURNIA! (say it out loud like the terminator). :{;o:

now ask yourself who should I thank for this?

solely the feminist movement?
or
solely Sikh philosophy?
or
a little bit of Both?

these western woman wouldnt be in these positions in the gurdawara if it wasnt for both; a liberal sikh philosophy and the feminist movement (a movement that hasnt gained ground in many parts of India)!

like I said before sikh philosophy didnt provide "the final blows" to establish equality amongst the sexes.

 

[kds1980]

Sinister after reading your posts on feminist movements i read on wikipedia about feminist
movements

Here is some content for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminist movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Effect on religion

The feminist movement has had a great effect on many aspects of religion. In liberal branches of Protestant Christianity, women are now ordained as clergy, and in Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism, women are now ordained as rabbis and cantors. Within these Christian and Jewish groups, women have gradually become more nearly equal to men by obtaining positions of power; their perspectives are now sought out in developing new statements of belief. These trends, however, have been resisted within Islam and Roman Catholicism. All the mainstream denominations of Islam, (the vast majority of Sunni and Shi'i scholars,) forbid the imamate of women over men in prayer. Yet, the past has not been absent of female scholars of Islam — in all disciplines — (as it would have to profile nearly ten thousand women, or roughly forty volumes). Rather, it is the present that is showing this absence, if indeed it is showing one. [See: Akram, Mohammad Nadwi, (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies), al-Muhaddithât] Liberal movements within Islam have nonetheless persisted in trying to bring about feminist reforms in Muslim societies. Roman Catholicism has historically excluded women from entering the main Church hierarchy and does not allow women to hold any positions as clergy except as nuns. However, given the shortage of new priests, key roles in Roman Catholic churches are increasingly being filled by lay ministers, 80% of whom are
women.[1]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion
Main article: Feminist theology

Feminist theology is a movement that reconsiders the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of their religion from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women's place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion's sacred texts.[121]
See also: God and gender and Difference feminism

Christian feminism
Main article: Christian feminism

Christian feminism is a branch of feminist theology which seeks to interpret and understand Christianity in the scope of the equality of women and men morally, socially, and in leadership. Because this equality has been historically ignored, Christian feminists believe their contributions are necessary for a complete understanding of Christianity. While there is no standard set of beliefs among Christian feminists, most agree that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically-determined characteristics such as gender. Their major issues are the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, and claims of moral deficiency and inferiority of abilities of women compared to men. They also are concerned with issues such as the balance of parenting between mothers and fathers and the overall treatment of women in the church. [122][123]

Jewish feminism

Blu Greenberg, an American writer and Jewish feminist.
Main article: Jewish feminism

Jewish feminism is a movement that seeks to improve the religious, legal, and social status of women within Judaism and to open up new opportunities for religious experience and leadership for Jewish women. Feminist movements, with varying approaches and successes, have opened up within all major branches of Judaism. In its modern form, the movement can be traced to the early 1970s in the United States. According to Judith Plaskow, who has focused on feminism in Reform Judaism, the main issues for early Jewish feminists in these movements were the exclusion from the all-male prayer group or minyan, the exemption from positive time-bound mitzvot, and women's inability to function as witnesses and to initiate divorce.[124]
People of interest
Rachel Adler
Nina Hartley
Tova Hartman
Susan Sontag
Yona Wallach

Islamic feminism

Mukhtaran Bibi, Glamour Magazine Woman of the Year 2005
Main article: Islamic feminism

Islamic feminism is a form of feminism concerned with the role of women in Islam. It aims for the full equality of all Muslims, regardless of gender, in public and private life. Islamic feminists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded in an Islamic framework. Although rooted in Islam, the movement's pioneers have also utilized secular and Western feminist discourses and recognize the role of Islamic feminism as part of an integrated global feminist movement[125]. Advocates of the movement seek to highlight the deeply rooted teachings of equality in the Quran and encourage a questioning of the patriarchal interpretation of Islamic teaching through the Quran (holy book), hadith (sayings of Muhammed) and sharia (law) towards the creation of a more equal and just society.[126]
People of interest
Fadela Amara
Asma Barlas
Samira Bellil
Mukhtaran Bibi
Zilla Huma Usman









So its quite clear that many many feminists are religious.so any women could be a feminist.

As far as your version of feminism is concerned it is called radical feminism
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radical feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feminist movement is very humane movement
As it is concerned with

The feminist movement (also known as the Women's Movement or Women's Liberation) is a series of campaigns on issues such as reproductive rights (including abortion), domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. The goals of the movement vary from country to country, e.g. opposition to female genital cutting in Sudan, or to the glass ceiling in Western countries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So any women whether atheist ,or religious could fight for these rights.

Now i accept that liberal feminist movements are very good one and everybody
should support them.thank you for discussion as now i can differentiate between a liberal and radical feminsm.Its now time for you to accept that radical feminsm is not the only form of feminist movement and stop giving all credit of women's liberation to radical feminism who are atheists.

 

[Archived_Member1]

thank you KDS ji for the informative response, and for saving me the trouble.

by the way, do you have a proper name i can call you by?

 

[kds1980]

thank you KDS ji for the informative response, and for saving me the trouble.

by the way, do you have a proper name i can call you by?

My name is Kanwardeep singh

And my nick name is dipu

 

[Sinister]

If all these countries are socialists then why the hell cold war was fought between the america and soviet.didn't the main cause of war was capitalist policies of america and socialist policies of soviet.these countries interferred in the affairs of many countries which resulted in deaths of many people.If america and other european countries applied socialist policies then
What policies did soviet,india and other socialist countries applied so that these countries became bankrupt

here are some of the statements of wiikipedia

Kds you have hurt my brain dearly…. Communism is not about countries….IT WAS NEVER ABOUT COUNTRIES! It was about a movement! It was about the unification of the working class to oppose the elite…if you read the Communist Manifesto this fact would become crystal clear to you. (but I sense you have neither the desire to learn or understand)

It is an ideology that has embedded itself in western culture and politics to help the poor and prevent the spread of economic inequality.

Without the communistic/socialist revolution this would not have been possible. Thus taking us back to your original post

“What have atheists done for the poor?” à Answer: A LOT MORE THAN ANY RELIGION and we have Marx and Engels (two very smart atheists) to thank for it.




Aside:
Your from India…have you ever been to a western country or worked in the west? (out of curiosity…this might help you grapple with what I am trying to relay)

Do you know the concept of minimum wage?
Social security?
Nationalized Health Care?
Welfare/ Social asistance?
state sponsored education?
Are you acquainted with any of these terms?

where do you think these concepts came from if not from socialist parties?

Plus:
The west has unions for everything. Auto-workers, steel-mill workers, teachers, doctors, dentists, writers etc etc. almost all manufacturing and skilled labor jobs are unionized… even in the US (the so called land of free-market enterprise…in reality is nothing of the sort).
these unions that empower the working class are all socialist constructs (derived from marxist and neo-marxist theorists).

now do you understand?

or do you want me to bring Marx back from his grave so that he may give you tutorial on his theory?

 

[Sinister]

Sinister after reading your posts on feminist movements i read on wikipedia about feminist
movements

So any women whether atheist ,or religious could fight for these rights.

Now i accept that liberal feminist movements are very good one and everybody
should support them.thank you for discussion as now i can differentiate between a liberal and radical feminsm.Its now time for you to accept that radical feminsm is not the only form of feminist movement and stop giving all credit of women's liberation to radical feminism who are atheists.

Now hold it RIGHT there!

not in a single post did I say that Radical Feminism is the ONLY from of feminism.

you have now officially resorted to putting words in my mouth.


What is with your obsession with wikipedia?

If you actually took the time and read everything on that site (before you gleefully decided to share it with us) you would see HOW the feminist movement started! And then you would know WHY I call feminism a grass-roots atheist movement.
The feminist movement started with the French Renaissance and the Enlightenment by religious secularists who created scientific communities for woman. (and this information is all present on the website you posted! But decided not to read)

And then this would answer your question “what have atheists done other than being selfish, self-absorbed lunatics.”

Greenpeace was started by atheists/agnostics
The feminist movement was started by atheists/agnostics
Socialist Philosophy was developed by atheists/agnostics

Now you know the selfless contributions of atheists/agnostics to society. All these contributions led to greater equality amongst humans and a better respect for nature.

now do you see the fallibility of your original post… But your not going to admit it because that may be a blow to your Freudian ego, which must, at all times, be protected.

 

[ISDhillon]

I think this post should be called "the problem with people", the issues have nothing to do with religion, in fact movements be they religious or not have continously challenged people in every era. In fact modern nation state in the west has sooo many problems that religion can rectify such as socio-eco-politico-religious pluralism. Environmental degradation is owed largely to the age of reason capitalist avarice has subdued nature to the point where our very existence is uncertain coupled with the growing inequity between the rich and the poor, indeed the time has come where we start to relearn SOME of the values we shed from religion this includes the spiritual pulsating presence between man and nature which bonds us to this world in a relation of interdependancy. Only after religions put ecological crisis on their uppermost redemptive agenda did the united nations go full throttle with the concept of sustainable development etc etc, so lets not chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[drkhalsa]

Thanks everybody for the Posts !

Special Thanks to Sinister ji S1ikh and Kds ji , for the wonderful discusion and respective view points

I tend to agree with many points from Posts of Sinister but Still cant understand what does he really stands for ,I mean does he mean to say that one should follow just one thing( which is best ) that is Atheism /Communism ( I hope its not the case )
Well I think I am influenced by everything Religion in past forms , Religions in New forms , Communist movement , Aithiest Ideas and view points and I think at my personal level they can co-exist may be this is what I call Personal conviction /Ideology /Religion at my personal level

Yes I agree that any ideology whether religious /Communitist tend to achieve some thing peaceful although on practicle grounds it turns out to be mess and otherwise But we can still make sense of all of it on practicle by respecting all of them and using best out of them

In short Nothing in such argument is Black and White but just the shades of the Grey . Personally I have ceased looking for Balck and white things /Concept in my life and I am quite peaceful with the shades of Grey I encounter

I think this post should be called "the problem with people", the issues have nothing to do with religion, in fact movements be they religious or not have continously challenged people in every era.

Dear friend ISDhillon your post proves to me that you are far more intelligent than me
as you have been able to write the thing in just couple to sentences for which I was srtugling to write in couple of Paragraphs and that to incompletely so thanks for that and good to see you again after long time on SPN



Again thanks all for the stimulating Posts

I forgot to thank harbansj24 ji for the wonderful Thoughts and I would say that it made lot of sense to me


Thanks everybody

Jatinder Singh

 

[ISDhillon]

Thankyou Dr Khalsa I feel sometimes alot of our discussion nowadays are clouded by our emotions byway of the current media propaganda against religion, nobody seems to slate the "other ideologies" but I am not so naiive. I see this disturbing trend on alot of forums not just the sikh ones and I try to keep away from the negativity.

Kind regards,

Indy

 

[kds1980]

Kds you have hurt my brain dearly…. Communism is not about countries….IT WAS NEVER ABOUT COUNTRIES! It was about a movement! It was about the unification of the working class to oppose the elite…if you read the Communist Manifesto this fact would become crystal clear to you. (but I sense you have neither the desire to learn or understand)

It is an ideology that has embedded itself in western culture and politics to help the poor and prevent the spread of economic inequality.

A typical sinister reply no answers to my questions.The basic theory of marx's was the means of production should be in the hand of community not in the hand of private ownership.
It was the main reason of conflict between capitalist countries and communist states.

Aside:
Your from India…have you ever been to a western country or worked in the west? (out of curiosity…this might help you grapple with what I am trying to relay)

no i haven't

Do you know the concept of minimum wage?
Social security?
Nationalized Health Care?
Welfare/ Social asistance?
state sponsored education?
Are you acquainted with any of these terms?

where do you think these concepts came from if not from socialist parties?

These concepts could be from socialist parties but that does not mean prosperity of america and west belong to socialism.The implementation of these became possible because of capitalist companies who paid big taxes to government.You Need to study about indian economy.All these things are very much present in india but in miserable state, reason there were no big capitalist mnc companies to pay taxes to government.India
tried to implement socialist model of Psu's and what was the net result the psu's instead of earning became a liability to goverment.The government itself had to pay ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED BILLION RUPEES to these psu's which were running in loss just because the Handful of employees would not loose their job.In the end india
was on the verge of bankruptcy when manmohan singh ended this partially.

The west has unions for everything. Auto-workers, steel-mill workers, teachers, doctors, dentists, writers etc etc. almost all manufacturing and skilled labor jobs are unionized… even in the US (the so called land of free-market enterprise…in reality is nothing of the sort).
these unions that empower the working class are all socialist constructs (derived from marxist and neo-marxist theorists).

The socialist unions were mainly responsible for losses of psu's My father itself was government employee and he told me that how people just work 2-3 hours out of 8 hours of duty because of powerful unions and no firing policy of government.

Even if you beleive that prosperity of america belongs to socialism of marx even then you have to accept economic failure of russia,india and many socialist countries belongs to marx. rather than prosperity of america and west europe..You cannot take only successes you have to take failures.Marx is acountable to the many more people offailed socialist countries rather than prosperity of middle class west and america

or do you want me to bring Marx back from his grave so that he may give you tutorial on his theory?

Bring him back and put him in front of best economists of world.



Also do you know sinister that in india IT industry and BPO industry no unions are allowed and but still every youngster of india wants to work in IT industry because of high pay packages
.it is the social concept of business that welfare of of employees is in the long term interest of business.

Now hold it RIGHT there!

not in a single post did I say that Radical Feminism is the ONLY from of feminism.

you have now officially resorted to putting words in my mouth.

First you wrote statement of of radical feminists about sikh guru's then you mocked Kelly of being a feminist and a sikh.all that was pointing toward radical feminism not the liberal one as many religious feminist are liberal which are fighting
in their religion for equal rights.So obviously any sensible person will conclude that only feminism exists in your dictionary is radical one.

What is with your obsession with wikipedia?

LOL Because it is good method of gaining quick knowledge and Sinister cannot deny the fact from it.

If you actually took the time and read everything on that site (before you gleefully decided to share it with us) you would see HOW the feminist movement started! And then you would know WHY I call feminism a grass-roots atheist movement.
The feminist movement started with the French Renaissance and the Enlightenment by religious secularists who created scientific communities for woman. (and this information is all present on the website you posted! But decided not to read)

Isn't it sound like hindus claim that everything in sikhism is found was already there in hinduism so all the achievements of sikhs belongs to hinduism.It doesn't matter that who started it.The fact is that liberal feminism has nothing to do with religion.it is mainly concerned with equal rights.

Here is something for you from wikipedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seneca Falls Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historian Gerda Lerner has pointed out that, in addition to ideas of social contract and natural rights, religious ideas provided a second fundamental source for the Declaration of Sentiments. Most of the women attending the convention had been active in Quaker or evangelical Methodist movements. The document therefore draws from writings by the evangelical Quaker Sarah Grimke to make biblical claims that God had created women equal and that man had usurped this authority by establishing "absolute tyranny" over woman. According to Jami Carlacio, Grimke's writings opened the public's eyes to ideas like women's rights and for the first time they were willing to question convention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you see religious women too highly participated in feminist movement you cannot give
all the credit to atheist.

Now let me ask you a question we all know gandhi fought british raaj with non voilence
and he was practicing hindu so does that mean that anybody who fights with non voilence against oppression, the credit will always goes to hinduism?

And then this would answer your question “what have atheists done other than being selfish, self-absorbed lunatics.”

Greenpeace was started by atheists/agnostics
The feminist movement was started by atheists/agnostics
Socialist Philosophy was developed by atheists/agnostics

So just by starting a movement does not mean that they will take all the credits of theses movements.

Now let me tell you WHY I STARTED THIS DEBATE WHAT HAS ATHEIST DONE
FOR POOR PEOPLE.. IN INDIA THE BEST SCHOOLS ARE CHRISTIANS SECOND ONE 'S BELONG TO SOME RELIGIOUS INSTITUION OR CULTURAL INSTITUION
THIRD CLASS BELONGS TO GOVERNMENT,ORPHANAGES TOO ARE MAINLY
CHRISTIANS ,SOME HOSPITALS TOO ARE FUNDED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUITIONS
NOW I WANT TO KNOW WHERE ARE THE ATHEISTS IN THE PICTURE.WHY THERE ARE NO ATHEIST INSTITUITIONS WHO DEDICATE THEMSELVES FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY AND OPEN SCHOOLS,COLLEGES,HOSPITALS ETC IN LARGE SCALE
EVEN ATHEIST SCHOLARS LIKE AMARTYA SEN BELEIVES THAT NO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ALLOWED APART FROM CHRISTIAN ONE'S.
AS A SIKH I ACCEPT HIGEHST AMOUNT OF SOCIAL WORK IS DONE BY CHRISTIAN INSTITUITIONS AND NO RELIGION OR ATHEISTS COULD COMPETE MATCH THEM ALTHOUGH YOU CAN BLAME THEM FOR PURCHASING FAITH OF PEOPLE.

 

[Sinister]

Greetings jatinder singh (dr. khalsa)

I would have to say with all honesty that I was longing for your presence on this thread. It is always nice to see a Sikh not living the unexamined life. And for that I praise you.

Thanks everybody for the Posts !

Special Thanks to Sinister ji S1ikh and Kds ji , for the wonderful discusion and respective view points

I tend to agree with many points from Posts of Sinister but Still cant understand what does he really stands for ,I mean does he mean to say that one should follow just one thing( which is best ) that is Atheism /Communism ( I hope its not the case )

That is not the case at all.
As for what I stand for:

I stand for people gaining a sense of individuality with reason. I stand for; revealing the biases hidden within people who have internalized propaganda and hold blind faith in the validity of ideology and institution. I stand against judgmental attitudes on groups of people.

To say that religion is wrong is unfair to say that the alternative – atheism/agnosticism is wrong is equally unfair (the line falls short of prejudice on either sides). Thus the position of agnosticism is what I embrace.

I stand for; looking at this social world not with high contrast colours of black and white but rather with shades of gray.

I stand for people respecting the role of historical movements that have progressed humanity. (this mean not underming there role)

I am not promoting an atheist viewpoint; I was merely countering the widespread belief (held by kds_1980 and countless other members) that people who are religious are somehow morally superior to people who are not. And that goes for any atheist who believes he/she is morally superior to a person of faith.

 

[kds1980]

I am not promoting an atheist viewpoint; I was merely countering the widespread belief (held by kds_1980 and countless other members) that people who are religious are somehow morally superior to people who are not. And that goes for any atheist who believes he/she is morally superior to a person of faith.

I don't beleive that atheist's are inferior.But i do beleive that many people just change their view and become atheists, agnostics and non practicing for the worldly pleasure's
of the life.Punjab is example of this people which are getting far from sikhism are incresingly engaged drugs,pre marital sex etc

 

[drkhalsa]

Dear Friend Sinister ji and Kds ji

there is no doubt that people like you and S1kh are among the brightest of the lot among the community as I can precieve from your posts and yes there are lot of things that your post teach everybody and help arrive at important conclusions which are not possible siting alone or infact at some religious gathering where the scope of disscusion is already very limited and already drafted

So I really cherish reading your thoughts in what ever time available on my hand

Sinister ji your reply about what you stand for was very clear and crisp thanks for taking that pain and I am very pleased to know what you stand for

About reply by Kds ji I can relate to many points he is trying to make , may be I have lived and worked in India and Abroad so that helps me in that

In India due to lack of strong social setup by government there are many basic things that are neglected and are taken care at their own pleasure by Labelled Religious organisations and as their side effect as we say in medical terms lot of social work is got done

On the other hand in country like UK such work is actively taken care by Social structure of society / goverment itself and they are doing the job pretty well and I think the same is true for many develpoed nations like Canada and europe

It also tells us about maturity at social level that happened in UK at time of world war that hey realised the need of NHS( national Health services) which was revolution and it never mattered that it was more sort of Communist/Socialist concept to provide such service but it was the need of the time and the end product that they were interested in

I am also aware that such services are not available in similar fashion in USA although there is MedAid and such services for very poor and needy but the fact is Canada is considered one of the more preffered country to live in above Usa is due to its strong Social setup and it does not matter now what exactly taught them this lesson whether it was Christianity , world war , communism etc but it resulted in something worthwhile it could be considered kind of social evolution .


Thanks everybody for your time

Jatinder Singh

 

[S|kH]

I don't beleive that atheist's are inferior.But i do beleive that many people just change their view and become atheists, agnostics and non practicing for the worldly pleasure's
of the life.Punjab is example of this people which are getting far from sikhism are incresingly engaged drugs,pre marital sex etc

This is what I think Sinister was implying is NOT the case.

Punjab may be getting away from sikhism, but that is not a correlation to an increase ind rug, sex, and pre-marital sex. Even when Sikhism had a stronghold in punjab, those factors were still very dominant. There just wasn't enough information and media out there to show coverage and gain everyone's attention.

Now, let's say even about 1-2 or we can take it back further than that, 3-4 generations ago Sikhism still had a very dominant role in Punjabi society. If you claim, that it is only due to Sikhs becoming "atheists" for worldy pleasures, then how do you explain the current state of male-female ratio in Punjab? For an all-time low ratio of what I think was around 800 females to 1000 males it is almost conclusive that the trend of infoeticide against females started many generations ago to reach the number it is now. Most of the time, it was done because females weren't as productive on the farm, if anything, Punjab is becoming more and more industrialized.

Drugs, sex, pre-marital sex, rape, are all things that were present amongst Sikhs and Sikh society long before the sudden wave of "agnosticism/atheism, punjabiyat"

It is not only Sikhs moving away from conservative religion, it is humanity on a whole.

 

[S|kH]

I think this post should be called "the problem with people", the issues have nothing to do with religion, in fact movements be they religious or not have continously challenged people in every era. In fact modern nation state in the west has sooo many problems that religion can rectify such as socio-eco-politico-religious pluralism. Environmental degradation is owed largely to the age of reason capitalist avarice has subdued nature to the point where our very existence is uncertain coupled with the growing inequity between the rich and the poor, indeed the time has come where we start to relearn SOME of the values we shed from religion this includes the spiritual pulsating presence between man and nature which bonds us to this world in a relation of interdependancy. Only after religions put ecological crisis on their uppermost redemptive agenda did the united nations go full throttle with the concept of sustainable development etc etc, so lets not chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

Brilliantly written.

I agree with most of what you said, but once again the point of this thread was not to write about all issues, but issues I thought that are prevalent in today's society simply due to the philosophical ideologies that religion forces onto humans from decades ago (i.e. submission to any authority). Hence, why it was labeled and written about that particular topic.

Is it problems in human nature? Or do the roots of such actions and philosophy come as a direct result from being conditioned as a child that religion = good? I don't know, and that was the discussion I was trying to spark.

Only after religions put ecological crisis on their uppermost redemptive agenda did the united nations go full throttle with the concept of sustainable development etc etc, so lets not chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

As per the question you saying as "problems of people" and not religion, what leads us to conclude that the above "success" was a product of people being religious and not just human nature to eventually care about their surroundings and fellow man? We're conditioned into thinking human nature is evil, and corrupt. (Yet, we believe that a child who grows naturally is the most innocent being alive)

The discussion I'm trying to highlight is that we can brush the "bad things" off religion and label them as defects in humanity, but the same success story you wrote above gets labeled as a product of being religious ? In the same sense, can't we say "Successes of people" and re-write the paragraph to say "Only after people put ecological crisis...."

And when I say "we've been lied to" that is the truth that I am beginning to find throughout history. I'm still learning, and I'm still seeking, but you bring out bad points on religion and people say "the root of the cause was not religion, that is the label" but when religion is cited as success its as if "that is the sole reason why humanity thought that"

If God is not involved in the action (which throughout human history he has never been involved unless you take religious stories from Hinduism or so as literal truth), then what leads one to believe that being good and understanding the environment to protect you is not human nature or the product of evolution?

In a very basic sense, isn't the cause of humans becoming knowledgeable about the ecological effects of our societies just a product of Darwinism/Evolution? Don't animals do the same things in their communities? (i.e. We live in a tree, if you have to go to the bathroom you go outside the tree ... wait a minute, all of the animal waste is piling up outside ... let's either walk further away to use the waste or move to a new tree) Obviously, animals don't have some divine intervention or an organization that leads to "hey, in order for us to survive, we need to keep the area around us safe from predators and clean". In our case, predators are largely becoming bacteria, gases and things we can not see, hence why we waited years before finally taking action.

 

[kds1980]

This is what I think Sinister was implying is NOT the case.

Punjab may be getting away from sikhism, but that is not a correlation to an increase ind rug, sex, and pre-marital sex. Even when Sikhism had a stronghold in punjab, those factors were still very dominant. There just wasn't enough information and media out there to show coverage and gain everyone's attention.

so all those people who say that present condition of punjab is not very good are lying
Also i want to know why the sikhs of punjab are not interested in their age old profession of
truck driving and joining army.Why are they now desperately want to immigrate to abroad
whether legally or illegally.I don't think that was the always the case.

If you claim, that it is only due to Sikhs becoming "atheists" for worldy pleasures, then how do you explain the current state of male-female ratio in Punjab? For an all-time low ratio of what I think was around 800 females to 1000 males it is almost conclusive that the trend of infoeticide against females started many generations ago to reach the number it is now

I am not at all saying that sikhs are becoming atheists.They are mainly becoming agnostics,non practising or joining dera's or becoming christians and we all know the reason and that is they don't want to wear turban or keep kesh.

As far as sex ratio's are concrened there are 2 types of sex ratio one is total and the other child sex ratio ..total sex ratio is not good indicator because if many migrants males are working there then ratio will obviously favours the male.Child sex ratio good is good indicator to check male female ratio and to check whether female foeticide is happening or not.It has nothing to do with previous generation.

Drugs, sex, pre-marital sex, rape, are all things that were present amongst Sikhs and Sikh society long before the sudden wave of "agnosticism/atheism, punjabiyat"

yes they were in punjab but majority of people are saying that use of it increased dramatically in past years.I don't know whether they are lying or not.

It is not only Sikhs moving away from conservative religion, it is humanity on a whole.

Another atheist myth.No sir islamic fundamentalism is on rise and to counter it other religions are also becoming fundamentalists.Intolerance of other religions is on rise even among the atheists and secularists.Example banning turbans in france.

 

[Sinister]

excellent posts S1KH!

I have read all your posts in their entirety
With honesty I beleive they have grown exponentially better from your first post (which had some arguments that I initially veiwed quite polarizing). Now I can grasp your overarching points a little better.

cheers


kds_1980 ... i don't know where to go from here? after reading your latest post ive done everything in my cognitive ability to try and show you the key relationship between sikh morality and humanistic morality (and how similiar they are). But you took the post into some weird direction for the sake of saving face and prolonging a debate that ended conclusively a while ago.

Thus I will leave you with one statement by Marx:

"Everyone should work according to there ability, and everyone should take according to there need"
---straight from the center of the Communist Manifesto

which guru, apostle, dalai lama, pope, imam would disagree with this quote?

we are all INDIVIDUALS when it comes to moral development. there are no groupings...either you have set morals or lack them.

sympathy and compassion towards ones fellow neighbour is something that dwells within every human emotional states no matter what there religous convictions.

down with ignorance!
cheers