[Assam] Defenders of the Faith -NYT Op ed

[Chan Mahanta]

At 2:09 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>  >*** Not that I am about make a federal case 
>out of it, but 'lungi-kheda' or 
>'Christian-hotwa' or >'Sikh-mora' or 
>"Hindu-kota' can be pursued WITHOUT having any 
>religious reason at all.
>
>I agree. But one can also "advance" some 
>religion or the other, without being religious 
>at all or being an atheist. They do so, because 
>of some political expedience.


*** That only proves the point that organized 
religion is little more than a political need.


>One can also "link" almost any political issue 
>to perceived "religious biases".
>For instance, IF I wanted to deport illegal 
>B'deshis, one could well link it to a 'lungi 
>kheda' agenda, when actually there may be none.


*** What's the difference ?



>
>  >So Ram, if I were you, I would not hold up my 
>atheism sympathies as an argument or 
>proof >against nationalistic or ethnic or even 
>cultural bigotries. Would you :-)?
>
>Hehehe!  Bigotry/Chauvinisms exists among all of us.
>Who amonst us has NO such bigotries?

*** Aha! The ol' 'they are all bad' argument' argument, ain't it? But no dice!
Not ALL are equally bad .



>  Only some of us try to cloak it very cleverly, 
>while the naive tell it as it is.

*** Heh-heh! The 'he is glibber than me' defense 
? Again, nice try! But no cigar.


>I think I belong to the naive group.


*** I was not attempting to label anyone.

>  And I really wasn't trying to put up an "atheistic front"

*** Did not suggest you were putting up a front 
Ram. 'Sympathy' was never synonymous with 
'front'. Let us not fall into that damned English 
language trap now :-).

c-da




>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>On 3/16/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> 
>wrote:
>
>At 12:54 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>You are welcome C'da. And see I am not that 
>>"lungi kheda" anti this or anti that (of 
>>religions) that some often would like to paint 
>>me as. :)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>*** Not that I am about make a federal case out 
>of it, but 'lungi-kheda' or 'Christian-hotwa' or 
>'Sikh-mora' or "Hindu-kota' can be pursued 
>WITHOUT having any religious reason at all. In 
>fact religiosity would be a deterrence against 
>such pursuits, unless one uses ( I mean abuses) 
>religion for entirely wrong reasons.
>
>
>So Ram, if I were you, I would not hold up my 
>atheism sympathies as an argument or proof 
>against nationalistic or ethnic or even cultural 
>bigotries. Would you :-)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>I too think this was a brilliant piece. 
>Organized religion has done more harm than 
>good to the world, IMHO.
>
>
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>On 3/16/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> 
>wrote:
>
>Thanks for sharing it Ram.One of the finest
>pieces I have read on the subject with reference
>to current events. Brilliant!
>
>c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:28 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>This is an interesting article and advances the
>>importance of Atheism in the world religious
>>order. I think, many of us (even though we claim
>>to belong to some religion or the other) will
>>find the benefits of Atheism.
>>
>>______________________________
>>
>>Defenders of the Faith
>>By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
>>
>>London
>>
>>FOR centuries, we have been told that without
>>religion we are no more than egotistic animals
>>fighting for our share, our only morality that
>>of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said,
>>can elevate us to a higher spiritual level.
>>Today, when religion is emerging as the
>>wellspring of murderous violence around the
>>world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or
>>Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and
>>perverting the noble spiritual messages of their
>>creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about
>>restoring the dignity of atheism, one of
>>Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only
>>chance for peace?
>>
>>More than a century ago, in "The Brothers
>>Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned
>>against the dangers of godless moral nihilism,
>  >arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist,
>>then everything is permitted. The French
>>philosopher André Glucksmann even applied
>>Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to
>>9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in
>>Manhattan," suggests.
>>
>>This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the
>>lesson of today's terrorism is that if God
>>exists, then everything, including blowing up
>>thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted -
>>at least to those who claim to act directly on
>>behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to
>>God justifies the violation of any merely human
>>constraints and considerations. In short,
>>fundamentalists have become no different than
>>the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom
>>everything was permitted since they perceived
>>themselves as direct instruments of their
>>divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress
>>Toward Communism.
>>
>>During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis,
>>Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered
>>an old woman who wandered down the street with a
>>dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl
>>full of water in her left hand. Asked why she
>>carried the two bowls, she answered that with
>>the fire she would burn up Paradise until
>>nothing remained of it, and with the water she
>>would put out the fires of Hell until nothing
>>remained of them: "Because I want no one to do
>>good in order to receive the reward of Paradise,
>>or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for
>>God." Today, this properly Christian ethical
>>stance survives mostly in atheism.
>>
>>Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good
>>deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn
>>salvation; atheists do them simply because it is
>>the right thing to do. Is this also not our most
>>elementary experience of morality? When I do a
>
>  >good deed, I do so not with an eye toward
>>gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did
>>not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A
>>moral deed is by definition its own reward.
>>David Hume, a believer, made this point in a
>>very poignant way, when he wrote that the only
>>way to show true respect for God is to act
>>morally while ignoring God's existence.
>>
>>Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether
>>the preamble of the European Constitution should
>>mention Christianity as a key component of the
>>European legacy. As usual, a compromise was
>>worked out, a reference in general terms to the
>>"religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was
>>modern Europe's most precious legacy, that of
>>atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that
>>it is the first and only civilization in which
>>atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an
>>obstacle to any public post.
>>
>>Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for,
>>not least because it creates a safe public space
>>for believers. Consider the debate that raged in
>>Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home
>>country, as the constitutional controversy
>>simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant
>>workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be
>>allowed to build a mosque? While conservatives
>>opposed the mosque for cultural, political and
>>even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly
>>journal Mladina was consistently outspoken in
>>its support for the mosque, in keeping with its
>>concern for the rights of those from other
>>former Yugoslav republics.
>>
>>Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes,
>>Mladina was also one of the few Slovenian
>>publications to reprint the infamous caricatures
>>of Muhammad. And, conversely, those who
>>displayed the greatest "understanding" for the
>>violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused
>>were also the ones who regularly expressed their
>>concern for the fate of Christianity in Europe.
>>
>>These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims
>>with a difficult choice: the only political
>>force that does not reduce them to second-class
>>citizens and allows them the space to express
>>their religious identity are the "godless"
>>atheist liberals, while those closest to their
>>religious social practice, their Christian
>>mirror-image, are their greatest political
>>enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real
>  >allies are not those who first published the
>>caricatures for shock value, but those who, in
>>support of the ideal of freedom of expression,
>>reprinted them.
>>
>>While a true atheist has no need to boost his
>>own stance by provoking believers with
>>blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem
>>of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect
>>for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs
>>as the highest value can mean only one of two
>>things: either we treat the other in a
>>patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order
>>not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the
>>relativist stance of multiple "regimes of
>>truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any
>>clear insistence on truth.
>>
>>What, however, about submitting Islam - together
>>with all other religions - to a respectful, but
>>for that reason no less ruthless, critical
>>analysis? This, and only this, is the way to
>>show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them
>>as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.
>>
>>Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the
>>Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the
>>author, most recently, of "The Parallax View."
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>assam mailing list
>><mailto:assam at assamnet.org> assam at assamnet.org
>><http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060316/70b4b47f/attachment.htm>