VHP says Answer to terrorism is counter terrorism

[ravishingravi]

Ji? Promote atheism??? :whack: There are no atheists in foxholes. Neither any the day the results to exams are announced. India is what it is today because of religion. Its a source of strength. Religion in addition to being an identity, is also a way of doing a lot of things for many Indians. Our problems are not because of religion, our problems are because some of us have a misplaced sense of superiority about our respective religions. In recent history, it was atheists like Hitler and Staelin who massacred most people.

When you talk about the lines of argument generally used against Atheism, the reference of Hitler and Stalin has to be right up there. Except the fact that, Hitler was not an atheist, and for sake of argument even if one accepts it, their motivation for killing people was not driven atheism. Atheism is not a belief system. As for point you were addressing, I agree, inspite of being non believer, I think religion integrates the country to a large extent.

[seedhi]

Ji? Promote atheism??? :whack: There are no atheists in foxholes. Neither any the day the results to exams are announced. India is what it is today because of religion. Its a source of strength. Religion in addition to being an identity, is also a way of doing a lot of things for many Indians. Our problems are not because of religion, our problems are because some of us have a misplaced sense of superiority about our respective religions. In recent history, it was atheists like Hitler and Staelin who massacred most people.

But that sense of superiority is inherent in many religions, especially the semetic ones. Any religion which explicitly condemns non-believers, and claims to be the only "truth", is, by its very nature, ingrained with a superiority complex.

[daryl1985]

Ji? Promote atheism??? :whack: There are no atheists in foxholes. Neither any the day the results to exams are announced. India is what it is today because of religion. Its a source of strength. Religion in addition to being an identity, is also a way of doing a lot of things for many Indians. Our problems are not because of religion, our problems are because some of us have a misplaced sense of superiority about our respective religions. In recent history, it was atheists like Hitler and Staelin who massacred most people.

I don't know much about Stalin or Hitler's religious beliefs but it is ridiculous to suggest that any of it is down to the fact that they were not particularly religious or atheist. Like it or not, religion been one of the most common causes of wars and armed conflict throughout history.

[Sarkar]

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah - Dharma protects those who protect Dharma - Sri Krishna

[Mariyam]

When you talk about the lines of argument generally used against Atheism, the reference of Hitler and Stalin has to be right up there. Except the fact that, Hitler was not an atheist, and for sake of argument even if one accepts it, their motivation for killing people was not driven atheism. Atheism is not a belief system. As for point you were addressing, I agree, inspite of being non believer, I think religion integrates the country to a large extent.

When have I claimed that their motivation to massacre was based on grounds of their lack of belief in the almighty? Or when have I said that Atheism is a belief system? You've got me all wrong here. ViruRulez suggested promoting atheism as a panacea for all ills plaguing our society. The gist of my response was that , such a move would not necessarily solve anything. Might create an identity crisis if anything. Forget that people use religion to justify wanton acts of terror and counter terror. Religion means much more to people at a personal level. How many times do you say a small prayer before you start your car? What do you do when Sachin is batting on 99? Or is it Ganguly in your case. :P What do you think a mother does when her child goes to write a board exam? These are manifestations of religion and a belief system. Accept it or not, people seek solace in religion. The whole ban religion/ promote atheism suggestion is very :cantstop: worthy. PS: Hitler may not have been an atheist. He may have believed in Christ or in Moses or thought that selling pancakes at Times Square leads to ultimate nirvana, but that is moot. He did clamp down on organized religion in his land and other places he captured. I have a faint recollection of reading something to that effect. Fair enough to say that he was irreligious.

[Mariyam]

I don't know much about Stalin or Hitler's religious beliefs but it is ridiculous to suggest that any of it is down to the fact that they were not particularly religious or atheist. Like it or not, religion been one of the most common causes of wars and armed conflict throughout history.

Dearest Daryl, I said

In recent history, it was atheists like Hitler and Staelin who massacred most people.

If someone said " In recent matches, it was the purple chaddi wearing batsmen like Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli who massacred most of the opposition bowlers "; Would you attribute Gambhir and Kohli's recent batting prowess to their choice of colour in undergarments?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Ji? In recent history, it was atheists like Hitler and Staelin who massacred most people.

that's hilarious. hitler and stalin didn't commit atrocities because they were atheist (btw, i doubt hitler was one, but for the sake of argument...) and their actions weren't influenced by any atheist belief. if anything, their ideals were mirror images of religious dogma - claiming natural superiority over others on the basis of race, or along the line of class. religious extremists commit their atrocities in the name of their religion - they make no secret of their religious influence and go to the extent of justifying their acts as some sort of religious obligation. this holds true for nutjobs from all religions unfortunately; far too many people get killed in the name of religion in this day and age.

[ravishingravi]

When have I claimed that their motivation to massacre was based on grounds of their lack of belief in the almighty? Or when have I said that Atheism is a belief system? You've got me all wrong here. ViruRulez suggested promoting atheism as a panacea for all ills plaguing our society. The gist of my response was that , such a move would not necessarily solve anything. Might create an identity crisis if anything. Forget that people use religion to justify wanton acts of terror and counter terror. Religion means much more to people at a personal level. How many times do you say a small prayer before you start your car? What do you do when Sachin is batting on 99? Or is it Ganguly in your case. :P What do you think a mother does when her child goes to write a board exam? These are manifestations of religion and a belief system. Accept it or not, people seek solace in religion. The whole ban religion/ promote atheism suggestion is very :cantstop: worthy. PS: Hitler may not have been an atheist. He may have believed in Christ or in Moses or thought that selling pancakes at Times Square leads to ultimate nirvana, but that is moot. He did clamp down on organized religion in his land and other places he captured. I have a faint recollection of reading something to that effect. Fair enough to say that he was irreligious.

Mohatarma, I do gather that. But crimes by atheists cannot be equated with crimes influenced religious doctrination. Ethnic cleansing in one part of the world cannot be equated to mass murder by an "atheist". And yes, I would also have greater degree of comfort if society moves from the religious dogmatic to a more rational, objective discourse although I might not take the hard line stand that ViruRulez has. So, in essence for almost all cases, I would agree that if we let go of the narrative of religious scripts we will be reducing the divide between people to som extent. So yes, we would be better off. But my larger point was for India specifically, I don't think it is such a bad thing to have religuous society. Primarily because it is so imbibed in our very being, as you rightly point out, no matter which part of India you come from. As long as, we do not become hard line and embrace it as a part of our "cultural" identity. Probably, the move towards the society that I envisage might be 50 years down the line for us. Right now tempering the religions across the board and uniting them in some way would be the way forward. Apologize if I have still misunderstood your position.The jury is definitely not out on Hitler's belief system. There are contradicting accounts.

[Tiger80]

WTH :whack: Oh no you didn't.................. I was a terror in my karate class. Our sensei used to pair sparring partners by the order in which we entered the class. People never entered for minutes after me. Even the guys. :haha: I beat even Vishal Markandey in record time in a 1-1 spar. I think that record still holds.You wouldn't want to pick up a fight with me. You still have time to change your statement. Warna.................. :ohyeah:

:haha: Please tell me this is not a serious post Seriously are you comparing phoney martial arts of urban cities with fighting capabilities of soldiers .It is fact that Indian muslims were not preferred in British Indian army ,You can google it out recruitment patterns in British Indian army or if you wish I can post some stats .Punjabi muslims had highest recruitement followed by sikhs, Rajput,Jats and Gurkha's . Also When we discuss matters of communities then acheivement of a particular indivisual does not matter.and BTW if you were so good in karate then why did not participated at national or international level and who is this Vishal markandey?

[Mariyam]

@ Ravish: I'm not equating genocides committed under the influence of religious indoctrination to those committed under an irreligious/ post religious/ atheist regime. All I'm saying is that those kinds of massacres and genocides occur even when religion is not in the picture. Removing religion/ politicized religion/ organized religion is no sure shot solution. @ Tiger80: My that post was not meant to be serious. Really, don't you know who Vishal Markandey is?? Don't put much importance on whom the British hired in their army. They would obviously hire from places that were pro-British. And that army was mainly used to maintain British rule in India, and in the process committed atrocities on their own people. General Dyer gave the orders at Jalianwallah Bagh. But who were the soldiers who followed the orders? They weren't from Lancaster or Edinburgh or Bristol. They were Indians. Who were the bulk of soldiers who put down the revolt of 1857? What do you think? Why should we hold what the British army did in high esteem? Do you even consider being a part of that army a virtue?

[ViruRulez]

When have I claimed that their motivation to massacre was based on grounds of their lack of belief in the almighty? Or when have I said that Atheism is a belief system? You've got me all wrong here. ViruRulez suggested promoting atheism as a panacea for all ills plaguing our society. The gist of my response was that , such a move would not necessarily solve anything. Might create an identity crisis if anything. Forget that people use religion to justify wanton acts of terror and counter terror. Religion means much more to people at a personal level. How many times do you say a small prayer before you start your car? What do you do when Sachin is batting on 99? Or is it Ganguly in your case. :P What do you think a mother does when her child goes to write a board exam? These are manifestations of religion and a belief system. Accept it or not, people seek solace in religion. The whole ban religion/ promote atheism suggestion is very :cantstop: worthy. PS: Hitler may not have been an atheist. He may have believed in Christ or in Moses or thought that selling pancakes at Times Square leads to ultimate nirvana, but that is moot. He did clamp down on organized religion in his land and other places he captured. I have a faint recollection of reading something to that effect. Fair enough to say that he was irreligious.

I would add even further and say not only promote atheism but also "one India" and "one world". If not for religion, we tend to fight for caste, creed or for even region.. even if that is not present we would probably fight for rich vs poor .. and regarding "identity", I ***ing hate nowadays with so many people using terms such as "identity" and "culture" and not to mention that is also becoming a reason for fighting nowadays .. there is nothing called bloody identity or culture and it is just a transient thing which keeps on changing with time .. the hypocrisy pervading the nation is really annoying .. we are just becoming a nation of hypocrites with people not sure about anything at all One more thing .. I am not saying "clamp down" on religion .. I am saying "promote" atheism .. I always say "promote" or "spread" when mentioning some important steps that needs to be taken and never say "force","shove" or "clamp down" etc. in such matters. The reason is quite simple. You can promote a thing democratically but cannot force it in a democratic manner. If you would have heard me personally or anywhere else I also say "promote" one child or two child policy and never say "force one child policy". Promoting can be done if planned properly and in an effective manner and inside democratic principles. Population explosion is another such problem which I always mention. Believe me. We as a nation would be soon screwed up if we keep on allowing this population explosion and do not take drastic steps "in a democratic manner" to curb it. We have far more population density in our nation with minimal resources compared to any other nation with land area or population area anywhere near our size. At the current population growth rate we will face a scenario within a few decades when our nation's resources would not be able to bear the population and we would face massive deficiency in every field from water to land area to everything else.

[yoda]

LOL @ those talking about promoting Atheism. Atheists are still an insignificant minority in the world, especially India. So, no one gives a feck about them, at least not yet.

[CSK Fan]

The day Indian Muslims Stop voting just based on past history things will improve ... vote bank is the one of biggest resons for communalism in this country..Already we have seen vote bank hnot working in Bihar

You mean like the hindus in Gujrat?

[seedhi]

You mean like the hindus in Gujrat?

Do you have any idea what Laloo did to Bihar in the 15 years he ruled, while getting re-elected by his "votebank"? Even the spectacle of him foisting his practically illiterate wife as CM did not stop his "votebank" from voting for him. There was no valid reason to vote Laloo for 15 years other than caste and religious considerations.

[Tiger80]

@ Tiger80: My that post was not meant to be serious. Really, don't you know who Vishal Markandey is?? Don't put much importance on whom the British hired in their army. They would obviously hire from places that were pro-British. And that army was mainly used to maintain British rule in India, and in the process committed atrocities on their own people.

To some extent you are right Britishers did recruit from area's which were pro Britishers but there were communities which were in forefront in opposing them yet their recruitment was very high in army

General Dyer gave the orders at Jalianwallah Bagh. But who were the soldiers who followed the orders? They weren't from Lancaster or Edinburgh or Bristol. They were Indians. Who were the bulk of soldiers who put down the revolt of 1857? What do you think? Why should we hold what the British army did in high esteem? Do you even consider being a part of that army a virtue?

This is very difficult question to answer.India retained the same pattern of British Indian army and regiment system.Most regiment still celibrate their day when they were created by Britishers.In 47-48 wars most of Soldiers that died protecting kashmir originally joined British Indian army .So Who were they? Traitors or Patriots ?

[achilles]

Religious discussions on ICF always go south, always. Kidhar ki baat kidhar pahuch gayi hai.

[Mariyam]

Quran with Bhagvad Gita in a communal harmony class. Encouraging move. http://in.news.yahoo.com/quran-bhagavad-gita-communal-harmony-class-041104751.html

Varanasi, Nov 21 (IANS) Holding the Quran in one hand and the Bhagavad Gita in the other, Mukhtar Ahmad conducts 'a class of communal harmony' at a madrassa in Uttar Pradesh's Varanasi district to enable students to draw similarities between Islam and Hinduism. Welcome to Bahrul-Uloom madrassa (Islamic seminary) in Chittanpura town where like Ahmad several other Muslim teachers are involved in imparting lessons of brotherhood and unity to inculcate 'moral values' in their students. 'Our main objective behind teaching Hindu scriptures along with the Quran is to undertake a comparative study of the holy books of the two religions to enable our students to draw similarity between Islam and Hinduism,' Ahmad, a teacher at the Islamic seminary, told IANS. 'By drawing similarity between the two religions, students will be able to correlate the teachings of Quran with those of the Bhagavad Gita and other Hindu ancient text, which in turn would enable them to respect the two religions in the same manner,' he added........ (for the full article, click that link)

[Lurker]

But that sense of superiority is inherent in many religions' date=' especially the semetic ones. Any religion which explicitly condemns non-believers, and claims to be the only "truth", is, by its very nature, ingrained with a superiority complex.[/quote'] This I agree with you completely. When did that happen earlier? :winky::winky: First up my apologies to you, and others, for not replying to my prior posts. Just busy and frankly now it does not matter. But yeah Abrahaminical religion have this issue of damning the non-beleivers. Which essentially ends up creating a social divide between us and them. Now I have to say Indian Muslims by and large are quite amalgamated inside Indian society but the religious angle still troubles. For example, one of my vociferous criticism of Islam has always been not allowing its followers to marry into other religion, specially women. This whole notion that two people can be in love but can not get married because of afterlife is retarded, to me. Why would you screw this life to get better afterlife?

[Mariyam]

But that sense of superiority is inherent in many religions' date=' especially the semetic ones. Any religion which explicitly condemns non-believers, and claims to be the only "truth", is, by its very nature, ingrained with a superiority complex.[/quote'] I'm no expert on Islamic theology, and from my *limited* study of the Holy Quran, I can say that your choice of words is a little off the mark. From your statement, I'd replace "condemns" with "berates" and "only" with "final". Of course, what you say could be true for the other Semitic religions, for I haven't read their scriptures nor studied their dogma. So I'll take your word for it. :P Some religions differentiate between the believer and the non believer, some segregate the society into classes and places one above the other. There are instances of inherent superiority (and hence inferiority) in all these cases. Either ways, the point I was making was about people falsely ascribing a sense of superiority for their ways , simply because they are born into that belief system. Somehow, I find talking/dealing about/with people easier than discussing scriptures and history whenever we have to discuss present day Indian issues. Scriptures and History can't be changed. People can be reasoned with and molded.

[Mariyam]

Do you have any idea what Laloo did to Bihar in the 15 years he ruled, while getting re-elected by his "votebank"? Even the spectacle of him foisting his practically illiterate wife as CM did not stop his "votebank" from voting for him. There was no valid reason to vote Laloo for 15 years other than caste and religious considerations.

Don't really understand where your ire is directed at here. Did Laloo do anything of note to alleviate the sufferings of his "votebank"? Who gained in the entire process? Out of curiosity, who voted for Nitish Kumar then? What was the % shift (estimated) in votes from Laloo's loyal votebank to Nitish. If Laloo's "votebank" were going to vote him ( or his illiterate) wife into power just on the basis of caste or religious considerations, why did he finally lose?