Religion and the right not to respect it
Sunday, 15 June 2008, 10:39 am | 396 views
The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
Human rights, civic rights, freedoms, rights, rights, rights, all this talk about rights, and yet, today, 60 years after the United Nations’ (UN) General Assembly’s adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), no one knows for sure who is right — there is the political right, the conservative right, the religious right, all grappling over a matter of who is right, who should be right, who should write, who should not write about what is right or wrong about rights.
This tussle over rights has led to the current situation today, where governments and judiciaries give people the right to impinge on the rights of others — all on the matter of a definitional challenge.
One of the most confounding examples of these “rights to discriminate” is manifested in religion, particularly because of society’s obsessive compulsion to give unadulterated and unquestioning respect to religion.
It is a dreadlock and a deadlock, and so, few people ever question the fundamental assumptions we make about religion or, indeed, if religion has any part to play in the human rights abuses of today. It is critical that we do so, because religion underpins so many other issues in society, not the least of these our concerns with human rights. This article will examine religion and its conflicts with human rights today, reflecting on how our blind-sighted wariness of questioning religion in society is a dangerous handicap.
Giving exaggerated respect to religion
The one major assumption society makes about religion is that it must be accorded, almost fanatically, a sort of shield from criticism, that we must all honour religion with the same sense of the sacred as its adherents. Atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, calls this “an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other”. How very true. Where we might argue over differing opinions on all sorts of matters, the instant we hit a religious pet issue — say like Creation, or gay rights, or abortion — religions have an automatic trump card, and even governments have no choice but to accede.
The argument that racial, cultural and religious harmony needs preserving is fair enough, but this argument should not force us to give exaggerated respect to religious views, allowing the glossing-over of clear instances of discrimination and abuse inherent in the religious and their attitudes.
We do not have to look far to see this happening. At the height of the 377A debates in Singapore, our own Prime Minister had no qualms saying that we should not de-criminalise gay sex simply because “some people view it as a sin”, regardless of the views of, say, moral philosophers and theorists, or sociologists, or lawyers and gay activists, as if these people are any less erudite than people motivated only by religion.
Elsewhere, this same acceding to religious precepts gives rise to the tolerance of such nonsense as an Ohio court ruling (Los Angeles Times, April 10 2006) in 2006 allowing a boy to wear a T-shirt in school that said “Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!” based on the statute of freedom of religion, all part of increasing Christian-led sentiments in America condoning the discrimination of homosexuals.
Discrimination arising from religious doctrines
The spurious and emotional wrangling of the Christian rightwing goes so far as to belittle and reject the concept of gay rights, simply because in Christian doctrine homosexuality is deemed to be abhorred by God (Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, Jude 1:7-19) and seen as an abomination to nature. This sentiment is taken to extremes in Islamic countries like Afghanistan, where archaic punishments like being buried alive have been prescribed for homosexuals. Despite their religion’s message of love and charity, how often do those Christians and Muslims that condemn homosexuals forget that homosexuals receive real and actual hurt from what is little more than intolerant hate-mongering?
Even more recently, a 10-year old girl in Yemen stirred controversy when she managed to get a divorce from her abusive husband more than three times her age, who had beaten her and forced her to have sex with him. The incident sparked off concerns that tribal interpretations of Islam allowed for an age of consent for marriage to lie below the official age of 15. When called to raise the age to 18, conservative lawmakers refused to take up the issue, perhaps out of respect to prevailing religious attitudes in the country.
It is this same adherence to religious law that advocates honour killings, marital abuse and female genital mutilation, in instances far too numerous for the scope of this article. Some Christians, too, have been known to argue against feminism, citing Scripture in support of enforcing the subdued place of the woman in the home and in society. That a doctrine based on centuries-old patriarchal sentiments can be so wrangled as to allow the butchery of women’s dignity in our enlightened age is surely evidence of how outdated our inexplicable respect for religion is.
The free press in Denmark experienced this phenomenon first hand after its publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten. It is true that the original 12 cartoons were, in many regards, very offensive and tested fire in their rude portrayals of the Prophet. But when protests by Danish Muslim organisations against the cartoons were rebuffed by other Danish newspapers, who had re-published the cartoons under the mantle of freedom of expression, a group of Imams living in Denmark distributed, in a dossier, the 12 cartoons, along with three other irrelevant and intensely-offensive pictures, (particularly this one, taken completely out of context), to Islamic nations like Pakistan and Indonesia.
The three pictures ended up being falsely attributed to being published by Jvllands-Posten, fanning the flames of an already tense situation and sparking off a furore that saw the destruction of churches and the murdering of innocent people. Here, we see how religious groups can hijack our exaggerated respect (perhaps even fear) of religion to disastrous ends. Sadly, “free expression” is a very loosely-understood term, as we can see from the anti-Semitic cartoons and sentiments (similar to this one) expressed in the media of many Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Indoctrination of children by religions
Most disturbingly, religions often have no issues with mobilising children for devious and dangerous purposes. In Pakistan, young children are taught to hate Jews and how to use guns and grenades — all in preparation to one day give their lives in a smoking testament to their anti-Semitism. In Northern Ireland, children are told they are “Protestant” or “Catholic”, and that the distinction matters, and consequently they grow up with the hatred and stigma associated with each denomination.
In the United States, Christian children are taught by their fundamentalist parents and teachers that they have a responsibility to ensure the rise of a Christian Nation, that the theory of evolution is nonsensical, that abortion is murder, that homosexuals are possessed of the devil, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the severity of climate change is a political half-truth (that, even, we should do nothing about it because it is part of God’s plan!).
In many countries, religions, particularly Christianity, are also behind the muting of sex education and contraception, a Sisyphean effort to promote abstinence, which only intensifies a dangerous stigma surrounding sex. This is indoctrination of the highest level — stuffing lies and misconceptions of an absolutist world down the throats of young children to steer them along precepts and beliefs that they may not, at their tender age, be prepared to accept. It is through children, impressionable and malleable as they are, that hatred and misunderstanding and ignorance are passed on from generation to generation, ostensibly to fulfil strong political motives.
The right to religious beliefs vs the right to criticise
Today, many of us shy away from questioning religions and religious beliefs because we respect them, bearing little understanding that this respect sometimes involves condoning gross and massive disrespect for the dignity and liberties of other human beings.
Religious people will not stop short of citing “hurt” at criticism hurled at their religion, but often have no qualms about causing real hurt, in the form of words, sentiments and, as we have seen above, actions, to those who do not stand in line with their precepts.
As we have seen, we do not have to look back terribly far into the Middle Ages to witness human rights abuses being exacted by religions and their adherents, because it happens around us today, from the conflicts in the Middle East to the Evangelical movement in the United States, to Singapore’s own proto-Christian right wing. It is an unsavoury truth, and one deliberately muddled and often confused with the principle of “freedom of religion” or the “right to religious beliefs”.
Undoubtedly, a fundamental human right is the freedom of worship, and that is generally undisputed in most countries, but will we refrain from criticising religion, where reproach is due, simply because of some ill-conceived respect?
A critical difference
At the end of the day, all I am calling for is an understanding that while we should afford people their rights to religious beliefs, we do not owe it to religion to fawn and bend over backwards simply out of deference.
There is a critical difference between rights to religion and criticism of religion, a line blurred only by those who wish to live comfortably with their overt discrimination and maltreatment of other human beings.
It is crucial for states, and especially secular ones, to understand that religions are capable of causing real hurt to people and that allowing them to hold sway over policies and laws that discriminate and marginalise others is unacceptable. Recognising this is not the same as “insulting” religion or denying people the rights to religion, and this should be the guiding principle in our laws.
The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, as is easy in a debate of such an emotional and “sensitive” nature, then we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
—————–
TOC will be showcasing a contrary viewpoint in a few days time.
—————–
Joel has a personal blog here: The Daily Backtrack.
—————–
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
Bravo ! While I am a practicing Muslim - I do however agree with some of your views.
Sometimes we give religion too much leeway. After all if the Church had its way in Europe 500 years ago - we’d still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe !
Copernicus, Galileo etc had to fight the doctrines of religion.
The trouble with religion is that it asserts itself as the unquestionable Absolute Truth……..thats the whole trouble !
Your points here are elaborated in The God Delusion by RIchard Dawkins.
Any readers not familiar with the book, should read it, agnostics or atheists.
http://www.richarddawkins.net
Joel,
Thanks for writing this article. I think that it’s a step forward to having more frank discussion about religion in Singapore.
I concur with your main argument that religions demand more blind respect than they deserve, even from non-believers or those of other beliefs. However, I think that you should make a clearer distinction between the fundamentalists as well as radical religious groups, and the average religious person who does not actively discriminate against others and demand exaggerated respect for their religion. I don’t think that most of the problems caused by religions today are directly caused by the religious moderates, but by the zealots who wish to change society, governments or businesses to conform to their beliefs, just because they think it’s right.
Anyway, I think that religious beliefs should not be spread or evangelised by any means, as people should have the right to decide what they want to believe in without pressure from others. Therefore, the only “respect” for religion that I have is to people who have an active desire to keep it to themselves, out of consideration for others.
I also think that children should not be exposed to religion, by parents or others. While religions do teach some universally accepted moral values, not all moral values taught in holy books are universally accepted. Also, children listen and believe anything and everything that their parents tell them, so it is morally irresponsible for parents to indoctrinate religion to their children and in effect, not give them a chance to rationally come to their own conclusions about religion. However, I think that you are on the verge of generalising that all religious indoctrination of children is for “devious and dangerous purposes”.
Thanks for writing this article. I look forward to seeing it spark a healthy and frank discussion in Singapore, where it’s sorely needed.
I think the biggest problem with religion is that it does not allow us to question its doctrines. It must be accepted on faith as the Absolute Truth.
Thats the problem because if you begin to question - then many things will fall apart…………
Dear People,
Below is a link to an article that discusses the conflicts between Islamic Law and Human Rights :
http://www.iheu.org/node/2949
Interesting to read about Hirsi Ali fighting to free herself; her struggle epitomises the conflicts between religion and human rights.
About time someone publicly questioned the mindless respect we are forced to pay to religion. While your essay does a good job of enumerating the various injustices and atrocities perpetuated under the banner of religion, it is - intentionally or unintentionally - silent on an even more fundamental question about religion: The question of religion’s truth.
It is a fact that many religions make various claims about our world that have been proven to be false. Creationism is only one of them. Yet because these collections of claims have been placed under the category of “religion”, we are inexplicably prohibited from question them with the same vigor with which we question other truth claims, and are instead compelled to respect them, for fear of being accused of “insulting” someone else’s religion or disrupting religious harmony.
No where else in public discourse do you see such a phenomenon where some assertions are automatically shielded from scrutiny merely because the claimants attach a particular label to their claims. If someone tells you that he was abducted by aliens while asleep, you would be extremely sceptical about it and be entitled to question said claim. But if someone tells you that an invisible, undetectable deity who was born of a virgin had died for your sins and rose again after three days, you are strongly discouraged from challenging his beliefs; to do so would be at best a social gaffe and at worse a crime (if you are too vocal about it).
I yearn for the day where religious claims are no longer elevated on a pedestal that they do not deserve, shielded from the criticism and disputation that we routinely apply to all other extraordinary claims, merely because some religious fundamentalists take offense and kick up a fuss when their beliefs are challenged. I applaud the religious moderates who are open to critical discussions of their beliefs.
Finally someone said it! Thank you Joel! TOC has just reached a notch higher towards objectivity. Political correctness towards religion is detrimental to our society.
In primitive times, cavemen probably clubbed each other to death.
That was great writing, Joe. Thanks for sharing
Usually a temporary political right (correctness) can be a long-term wrong.
Fire-fighting solutions adopted under the guise of pragmatism can do more
damages to the nation in the future if they are not monitored closely and
arrested in time before some even more serious problems arise.
Take for example the temporary measure of adopting the “Two-Is-Enough” family
planning policy in the early 1970s. What happened? The miscalculated result is
that we have to now adopt a policy of encouraging an enormous influx of foreign
“talents” and foreign “non-talents”, even to the extent of encouraging China Beer
Girls to replace our own folks who need a second job to survive. This lack of
foresight is now becoming detrimental to the livelihood of many of our people
and perhaps also to the survival of our nationhood.
Another example is the unspoken practice of the “Robin Hood who robs the poor”
in order to enrich those who are already rich. This has caused the income gap
to widen further and further, making the rich becoming richer and the poor
poorer. If not checked in time, this would lead to more problems in the future.
The same can also said about religions, as pointed out by you, Joel. And just
like those before me, I also concur with what you have written.
It is about time that some of the undeserved rights given to religions be examined
and reviewed for the purpose of national harmony, not just religious harmony.
Because the nation has to be bigger than the separate religious organizations.
Nation before self should be the right emphasis. That means nation before
religion.
As most religions are based on FAITH rather than upon the real truth of the
TRUTH, questioning the TRUTH of each religion would bring no end to the
arguments and could easily lead to heated exchanges which should be
avoided as far as possible. Therefore, what we the netizens can do is to
examine those areas of religious activities that infringes upon the rights
of other non-believers or separate faiths.
To start off, I would like to suggest that we look into activities such as
house-to-house evangelism and subtle evangelism to the young in schools
as well as outside schools. Why must we also include outside the schools?
It is because some of the cunning evangelists who are so-called “school
teachers” may invite (through a third person) their pupils/students to a party,
picnic or outing in order to brain-wash them without having to infringe upon
school regulations. Such instances are happening very regularly, yet the school
authorities or the Ministry of Education can do nothing about it. I think this
“poisoning” of our young minds for selfish religious interests should be
stopped if we can help it.
Just my two cents to start the ball rolling. No offense meant to anybody. If I
have said something wrong, I apologise without any reservations.
Cheers and be happy.
Kaypo Citizen - 15 June 2008.
I think we should be careful that while, as I have argued above, religious beliefs and ideas should not be granted exaggerated and automatic respect (these are ideas as any other and need to earn respect, through argument, discussion etc), we should respectfully agree to disagree and tolerate peoples’ rights to hold on to different opinions about “Truth”, even if we feel they are mistaken.
This is the basis of religious freedom and harmony, and something the liberal-minded, especially atheists and agnostics, need to be wary of preserving in spite of their heated (arguably more erudite :p) arguments. It is partly for this reason that the article doesn’t deal with the issue of religious truth- the main factor is that it would have been beyond the article’s scope.
Also, much has been said on the issue, in ways I cannot even hope to emulate:
Richard Dawkins, in _The God Delusion_ makes some excellent arguments (especially from biology and astro-physics), and has a wonderfully readable and witty prose style- I certainly recommend it to those curious on the matter of religious truth. Christoper Hitchens, too, in _God is Not Great_, which engages the matter from an overtly more literary, philosophical and historical perspective.
Sam Harris’ _Letter to a Christian Nation_, while dealing specifically with America, does make interesting reading as well.
The fact that these books are readily available in our stores is indicative that things aren’t that bad in Singapore, but it does not say much for the level of public discussion on religion, or the government’s wishy-washy tendency to pick-and-choose religious perspectives in decision making (casino vs gay rights, for example).
Dear Joel,
But how do you deal with Creationists who deny Evolution ? For that matter - how do you deal with the schism between Modern Science and religion ?
Religion makes truth-claims which can be checked against Modern Science. When it does not check out - then what do we do next ?
Take Malaysia for example. What is your opinion regarding the Lina Joy controversy ?
Hi everyone,
im curious to see an article that has the other side of the coin. I.E religion improving human rights.
I guess ultimately religion should be something of choice. Not being forced upon people (i.e lack of human rights) but instead allowed the freedom of choice to make.
I for one advocate religion because of the good sound moral values. Religion should not be an excuse for the contravening of human rights (i.e crusades / jihadists starting wars taking lives) but a platform to promote life, promote sound moral value and the inevitable question of after life.
Personally as someone who has a religion thats my take on ti.
Just my 2 cents imo.
Cheers
Well this is my first comment on this website. So pardon me for my bad language and sentence structure.
There is one thing I hate about this religion issue is that it is ok to be vocal about your religion e.g telling other people how great your religion is but it is not ok to be vocal about why religion causes problems or the contradictions/authenticity of the Bible.
Dear Editor,
moderates are often are the ones who will be enraged and not the fundamentalists.(enraged only but not voilent)
The fundamentalists are more grounded in their religion and more tolerant of views like you have about a ” invisible, undetectable deity who was born of a virgin had died for your sins and rose again after three days”.. The fundamentalist love you raising such issue and of course provided you are willing to “listen”. Fundamentalists are not interested in converting you. That is not his job.His job is sharing with you and not forcing and imposing on you.
I agree if dubious means are used to hoodwink innocent children into a situation to spread the religion to them is wrong. This is as good as lying. The means cannot justify the ends.
That goes for you too, Mr. Komnenos. The Bible has been attacked since time immemorial and it is still. You can attack it. No one will be up in arms. No rioting, i assure you. It will be fair if you are willing to give the right of reply to the fundamentalists.
Yes Komnenos, it’s such a double standard, isn’t it?
Anyways… Joel. Thank you for bringing this up, though I think the points in your great article could be reinforced by more examples. Such as what the crazy religious people have done, right here at home. Put it here for the crowd to see. Granted, lots of it is available at yawningbread.org, but I have a feeling that many people avoid reading the site just because “it has nothing to do with me, it’s about gay issues”.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. YB writes about everything and he’s very good at it.
Joel, an excellently-written article. It brings out a somewhat taboo subject - that we should be able to criticise some of the actions of those driven by religious beliefs. Therein lies the gist of it:
The difference between criticising a religion (which I still do not think we should unless it preaches violence and abuse) and the actions of those driven by religious beliefs.
I think that is a distinction which needs to be made - criticise the actions but not the religion itself. And I think that is what the singapore govt is actually concerned about. That some may start criticising others’ religious beliefs and draw visceral reactions leading to divide and distrust.
I do feel, however, that criticism of the actions because of religious beliefs is necessary, as you eloquently quoted the instances where this is justified.
Actions based on religious beliefs which abuses the rights of others is a matter which we all need to be mindful of - and not turn a blind eye just because the action is borne out of someone’s religious beliefs.
You’re right. Deference to religion is something which we should not do.
Dr. Alwi,
I may disagree with the position, but I don’t disagree with people having the right to hold a sincerely-felt mistaken or unscientific view. It is unfortunate and sometimes tragically comical. The schism between modern science and religion is best dealt with, I feel, by waiting and seeing- science is, inherently, the pursuit of empirical truth, so perhaps this is ultimately a self-resolving problem. Denying evolution does not make it go away, nor can it erode what has been proven with empirical evidence, so the tussle in my opinion, is just something that serves to annoy those who are convicted in their beliefs.
J,
I feel that one does not need religion to derive moral values (or to be ‘good’), nor can we say what, indeed, are ‘good’ moral values because morality changes with the times. Richard Dawkins makes reference, for instance, to the fact that some of the highest crime rates in the USA are in States that profess to be the most religious. He also discusses the instances of how morality has evolved over the years (the position on slavery, for instance, arguably condoned by Old Testament teachings, is not the same today as it was maybe 2 centuries ago).
Religion ‘makes’ people good with either incentives or punishment- reincarnation, heaven, hell, karma etc- are we good for good’s sake or good for the sake of a good afterlife?
Religions offer what I think are very common-sensical values, but also preach moral absolutism, which can be dangerous. This absolutism can be taken to extremes, if you look at Fred Phelps and his God Hates America campaign in the USA- Phelps and his cronies roundly thank god for American deaths in Iraq, saying all this is the result of tolerating homosexuals amidst other offenses against the Christian doctrine. Less extreme preachers in the States have been known to say that HIV is god’s punishment for homosexuality.
Joel,
I am not saying that we shouldn’t tolerate other people’s right to believe in things we hold to be false; we should - freedom of religion and the freedom from being discriminated against due to one’s beliefs is a cornerstone of a free society. What I am questioning is the view that we shouldn’t dispute the truth of religious beliefs at all, because it is somehow impolite or because some theists take offence when their core beliefs are challenged.
If religion were just like any other set of inconsequential, private beliefs, then it really wouldn’t matter whether they were objectively true or false. But the fact is that religion plays a significant role in informing public policy, setting community standards, and even shaping our knowledge of the world around us. For example, when the Government wanted to craft Singapore’s policy on stem cell research, they consulted religious leaders for their views. When your personal religious beliefs start to encroach on the lives of other people in society, those other people ought to be entitled to question the truth of your beliefs.
The Editor:
I agree!
In fact, one could argue that consulting religious leaders on stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality and other hot-button issues is perhaps a display of the deference to religion- why should religious leaders be taken to hold any level of expertise on these matters?
zhummeng:
“The Bible has been attacked since time immemorial and it is still. You can attack it. No one will be up in arms. No rioting, i assure you. It will be fair if you are willing to give the right of reply to the fundamentalists.”
This may be true, but perhaps you might want to consider how the fundamentalist Christian rightwing, once again in the USA, constantly agues that the right to be Christian is being eroded by the onslaught of attacks on the Bible by atheists and scientists et al, and that they are being “intolerant” for doing so.
These groups may not riot, but they hold demonstrations against abortion, against gay marriage, against gay adoption…. it’s highly questionable whether or not, as you say, their job is not to “convert” you as to their beliefs, but they certainly want to influence policy and build a nation that is to their liking, that they are comfortable with, regardless of how others may feel.
Good article! Sooner or later the role of religion(s) in a nation has to be tackled. Religion has always been a sensitive issue since it involves the fundamental beliefs of the believers. Devout followers may feel threatened by subjecting religion to scrutiny since the “absolute truth” is put into question.
Though I see the necessity for the promotion of inter-religious harmony etc, I can’t help feeling that the nature of religion itself is just not compatible with the coexistence of other religions…i.e. any religion precludes the existence of other religions by virtue of its nature.
While it is not impossible for the issue to be resolved spontaneously, the next best thing is to have an engaging (and hopefully constructive) discussion for a positive outcome.
Dear Joel,
I tend to agree with The Editor. Problems arise when religious belief is imposed on others. I quote The Editor,
“When your personal religious beliefs start to encroach on the lives of other people in society, those other people ought to be entitled to question the truth of your beliefs.”
Very true indeed !
Take the Lina Joy decision in Malaysia for example. Her human right to follow the religion of her choice and to have it displayed on her i/c was trampled upon.
All because the religious views of others were imposed on her.
The same can be said of the Creationists and so on. Do we then NOT teach Evolution in Biology classes just because some religions do not accept it ?
Indeed in Malaysia - there was a major major debate on Islamic Law. Many aspects of Islamic Law are in conflict with modern notions of Human Rights.
Trouble begins when Religion affects the Civil Liberties of others.
Trouble begins when Religion interferes with the functions of the State.
Trouble begins when Religion begins to spell out and dictate Moral standards of a bygone era.
And so on.
This debate may not be so acute in secular, cosmopolitan Singapore. However in Malaysia it is extremely important in view of the Islamisation policy and also because of the rise of the Islamic party, PAS.
There the question of Islamic Law versus Human Rights is a very real one.
Did you know that they do NOT teach Evolution in Biology classes in Malaysia ?
>>Dear People,
Below is a link to an article that discusses the conflicts between Islamic Law and Human Rights :
http://www.iheu.org/node/2949
===
Syed, you appear to be pasting that link repeatedly all over the place. Isn’t that bordering on spamming?
Dear Solo Bear,
Well I was hoping to draw people into a debate over it. Maybe use the article as a basis for discussion.
Besides - here is a very concrete example where religion and human rights may be in conflict.
In any case, the fact that the OIC actually declares an Islamic version of human rights ishould be of great interest to a Singapore surrounded by Muslim countries.
How about if we debate this article ?
I think you’ve blamed far too many problems on religion.
Excellent commentary!
And Joel rightly stayed away from delving into truth claims; after all people can believe whatever they want to believe privately about unassailable truths. That is a human right - the freedom of conscience.
Joel has kept his focus on the public space — why we defer so much to religion.
Having said that, it is hard to distinguish where the private ends and the public begins. His illustration of religious indoctrination of children is a good example. Where does the public interest lie?
In the US, some parents demand that schools not teach their children about evolution. At the rate things are going, I won’t be surprised if we hear of similar demands in Singapore soon.
Actually, I think that Evolution is a pretty bad theory on the grounds that quantitative predictions are few and hard to come by. Basically, you can’t predict when a specie will split into 2 species as opposed to predicting the movement of a satellite in space from Newton’s Laws. Having said this, evolution is the best and simplest theory that fits the empirical evidence so far, as opposed to being made of clay by some divine power. btw this is the Popperian point of view.
Scientific theories are not absolute facts that can trump religious truths. It is just that scientists have spent a lot of time testing them against empirical evidence as apposed to most theologians. So I would argue that we should not band the teaching of Creationism out right but instead should point out why Evolution fits the empirical data better than Creationism, e.g. fossil records, fruit fly experiments, etc.
In the same vain, evangelism in its many forms should not be restricted on the grounds of the Right to Free Expression but I would suggest that science type people should make the time to educate the masses instead of just writing papers or attending conferences all day. Also explaining stuff without the nerdy lingo would be nice.
Also, be aware that Evolutionary theory is a descriptive theory not a nominative theory. It tells us what goes on instead of what should go on. The Human Rights is nominative instead of descriptive. Further, Human Rights are predicate on Free Will while Evolutionary theory has undercurrents of genetic determinism. A social policy of Eugenics would be much better supported by Evolutionary theory but that would really be a very, very bad idea.
Just my 2 cents.
Human rights - what is the basis? Most liberal writers like Locke seem to ground their defence of rights on religion, without religion, is there any basis for the so-called human rights as we know of them presently? The human rights abuse from religion is ever so publicised, yet the human rights defence from religion is always pushed into the shadows - probably because ignorance is bliss?
Even if a secular defence of human rights can be carried out, are they based on justifiable grounds? Is a utilitarianism defence of liberty possible? Without an understanding of the defence of human rights by liberal writers, in my humble opinion, we cannot achieve a robust and constructive discussion about the right form that the relationship between religion and the state and society should take. Even within a secular defence of liberty, harm to others is usually justified as a legitimate reason for interference with the liberty of others.
B said:
The human rights abuse from religion is ever so publicised, yet the human rights defence from religion is always pushed into the shadows - probably because ignorance is bliss?
Agreed and I will give a real world example to back this.
Starting from the 4 Sept 1989, demonstrations began every monday after prayers at the St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig, Germany till almost when the Berlin Wall fell. This was the first mass demonstration that eventually lend to German Unification. It was sanctioned by the Lutheran State Church and was opposed by the officially atheist Communist Party.
Even from a epistemological atheist’s point of view. Credit should be give where credit is due.
It seems with so many versions of RIGHTS, it is in danger of accumulatively becoming one huge WRONG…
I just wish that you people are more aware of the Religion versus Human Rights debate in neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. These are real life test cases. The debate is very acute because the consequences are so real and vivid.
Any comments on the Ahmadiyyah ?
Lina Joy ?
Moral policing in Malaysia ?
PAS and Islamic Law ??
“Starting from the 4 Sept 1989, demonstrations began every monday after prayers at the St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig, Germany till almost when the Berlin Wall fell. This was the first mass demonstration that eventually lend to German Unification. It was sanctioned by the Lutheran State Church and was opposed by the officially atheist Communist Party.
Even from a epistemological atheist’s point of view. Credit should be give where credit is due.”
‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’ (Matthew 22:21). It could be said that the Lutheran State Church wasn’t behaving very religiously :p
Interesting, you sound like the very people you condemn.
Uncompromsing, absolutist, pseudo doctrinal even.
Point taken tho….never in extreme to be taken
No, I was actually trying to suggest that the example mightn’t have been religiously motivated.
Joel said:
It could be said that the Lutheran State Church wasn’t behaving very religiously.
If your Right to Worship is curtailed by the State, I see no problem with resistance through Civic Action motivated by Religious Inspiration. Note that religious groups were very marginalized by the East German Government .The Government was prone to demolishing churches for example.
I must admit though, that once it became a mass action, much of its character would have changed.The demonstrations mass appeal was mostly about the suckiness of the Communist system.
I hope somethings will change and that the govt wud do more in cosmo singapore to address the sensitivites of religious activities that affects other groups. loud prayers from the mosques thru amplified speakers in the past have today quieten substantially, is an example of considerations to other religious groups. on the other hand, the joss burning, loud clanging and related activities in the public whether during chinese funerals or others, have besides increasing pollution, also rudely intruded into the quietness of other religious groups, have not stopped al these years.. during some of these activities, there were ritual performances on the side, where screams can be heard in the middle of the morning. and the free sprouting up of religious artefact shops with their burning incense sticks within aircond shopping complexes, to the total disregard of the sensitivities of other religions is an issue the govt shud look into. there are more than one religious groups in singapore, everyone shud play its part to be considerate to each other.
And the govt shud be proactive in seeking solutions of fair play instead of just leaving things as it is.
This sort of remind me of what is happening right now - with the judiciary and criticisms of it. It seem that it is held in the same high regard as religion. That we cannot criticise it.
Sadly, this is how corruption creeps in slowly but surely. Absolute trust in anyone or any institution inevitably results in corruption of some kind. Paedophiles posing as priests is one other such example.
Religion doesn’t really make people good with rewards such as going to heaven. Rather,it forces people to follow it with threats of hell and suffering. Look at the bible,it says that the person who believes in God will go to heaven. So that means that people who believe in that religion can bomb buildings and kill innocent children and still go to heaven while a good guy who helps people for nothing in return will go to hell becos he does not believe in that religion?
I’m an atheist,btw
Dear Rebel Peasant,
Yes - I have long thought about this. It seems to me that the majority of people are simply born into a religion due to their family and society. Only a small percentage of people convert to a religion of choice.
Doesn’t it follow that God should judge us according to our deeds - instead of our beliefs - since our beliefs is shaped largely by the family and society we are born into ?
Indeed had you been born into a Saudi Arab Muslim family at the turn of the century - you would probably remain Muslim all your life.
And had you been born into a Buddhist family in Tibet - you would probably be Buddhist today.
And so on.
To me - what matters most are one’s deeds. After all - to quote Shakespeare - what’s in a name ? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet !
Besides - one’s beliefs and faith level can change and cannot be objectively quantified………..its all too subjective.
Atheists are an interesting bunch. By certain religious standards, they are considered “fools”, and yet by these same standards, even though they don’t have to account for their “sins” or immoral behaviour to any supernatural forces, you don’t generally see atheists detonating themselves or bombing abortion clinics or picketing against gay rights in the name of scripture.
I am not against religions but over-zealous prozelytizing and insensitive preaching by claiming that there is only one ‘true god’ in the universe is something I cannot accept.
An interesting article can be found here: http://www.xanga.com/LevDau/661307069/item.html
Joel said:
you don’t generally see atheists detonating themselves or bombing abortion clinics or picketing against gay rights in the name of scripture.
Actually, Eugenics which among other things advocated(some members more strongly than others) sterilization and euthanasia of the mentally handicapped was a legitimate research topic at one point in time.
Clinical psychologists use to classify homosexuality as a disease (I think this may still apply in Singapore).
At least one game theorist (Herman Kahn) advocated a preemptive nuclear strike killing millions to win the cold war.
The point is that scientists, the majority of which are atheists, can make bad moral judgments just like everybody else. Science which is often used to justify atheism is like any tool amoral. Basing something on science does not automatically give you the moral high ground.
That is why ethics committees in research often do have religious types on it. Checks and balances are always necessary.
” Andrew Loh on June 16th, 2008 9.55 pm
This sort of remind me of what is happening right now - with the judiciary and
criticisms of it. It seem that it is held in the same high regard as religion. That we
cannot criticise it.
Sadly, this is how corruption creeps in slowly but surely. Absolute trust in anyone
or any institution inevitably results in corruption of some kind. Paedophiles
posing as priests is one other such example.”
============================================================
Dear Andrew Loh,
When wolves start to wear sheep skins as white as wool, then all the innocent
little Red Ridding Hoods will be in serious trouble/danger.
When foxes start to act as Robin Hoods, then they will rob the poor to help the
rich to get even richer.
When crooks adorn the dress of respectability as monks and priests, or CEOs
of charitable organizations, then the gullible would donate millions for them to
live lavish and glorious lives.
When adulterers start to hold high positions, then immorality becomes the norm
of the day.
When lawyers enter into the conspiracy of silence, in the name of loyalty and
royalty, then justice and constitutional rights are least on their minds.
When Opposition MPs also join the conspiracy of silence, in the hope of gaining
approval by playing the role of watch-dogs, then the peasants will have to suffer
in silence.
When most of the peasants either have no guts to act or couldn’t care less about
politics and society, then they deserve to continue to suffer in silence.
Everyone can only reap what he has sown, individually and collectively. This is
the Law of Nature that over-rides every man-made law.
Dr S Alwi,
I am agnostic, becos I have not yet found my “truth”. I had spoken once to my colleague, who is a muslim. I asked him, “we know each other for more than 20 years, I am not a perfect person but as u know, I do observe most, if not all, of the 10 commandments. But, without embracing any religion, when my time comes, will I be going to hell or heaven???” Without hesitation, “HELL. Becos, u are given the opportunity and yet you refused to believe. Thus, you deserve to go where you deserve…”
Dear searching,
I myself find that organised religion has serious philosophical problems if taken too literally.
As a practicing Muslim, I try NOT to judge others but rather leave it to God to decide who goes where.
It is not our business to decide on matters like salvation etc. Thats God’s business.
But - yes - we are mostly the products of our families and societies. Very few people actually convert to a particular religion of choice.
Indeed - had I been born as a Southern Baptist in Alabama - then what are the chances that I will be Muslim today ?
The point is - believe in whatever religion you choose. But please be a good person and observe the Golden Rule. Its not our business to judge you. That is God’s business.
An article well written, and I yearn for the promised contrary viewpoint. While I should wait for it to be published before I post a comment (even in this article), I’m afraid I’m too free at the moment to resist adding a few thoughts, and I’m quite occupied next week in a fabulous one-week SAF holiday camp.
Anyway, I digress. I’m a scientist (or at least, in training), and so often do I observe conflicting views between science and religion. From the famous stories of Copernicus and Galileo in the past to the theory of evolution and issues surrounding bioethics today, science has always been in struggle with religion or other authorities of “truth”. And indeed, how many times had I have to argue with others on such an issue, defending science as the “truth”?
However, it just dawned upon me one day, after a great deal of thinking, that there is no meaning in claiming that science is “correct”. This is because science has its own domains, its own axioms, the basis of science, which is, mainly, empiricism (tests against experiments/observations), rationality (based on logic/mathematics) and Occam’s razor (choose the simplest theory that explains the most). If you accept these assumptions, then science is correct. But someone can always claim that, for example, empiricism may not be the best way to probe “truth”; faith is a better method. And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?
Likewise, when we argue about human rights, when we argue about the freedom of religion, there is an underlying basis, i.e. fairness. Is there any justification for fairness to be more fundamental than religious truth? As much as I would like to say yes, I can’t find any substantiation for that. Is it apparent that fairness is more fundamental than religious truth? To us, it may seem so, but to those of the Middle Ages, religious truth ranks higher than fairness: a sign of changing moral basis. So ultimately, in my opinion, fairness is just the flavour of our times. Just as centuries ago, religious authorities impose truth above fairness, today we impose upon religious believers fairness over their truth.
Who knows, maybe five hundred years into the future, people may look back at our times and say, “See those people championing fairness and human rights and all? How barbaric!”
Actually,if everyone learnt to stop saying,”My god is better than your god,” or, “Believe or go to hell,” then atheists wouldn’t really bother religious people. That’s what I would do.
“And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?”
You are different because empirical evidence can be observed by all, which makes a proposition/hypothesis falsifiable, which in turn makes it possible to try to find out if something is true or not.
Belief by faith is in contrast (and by at least one definition) not based on evidence, and this renders religion unfalsifiable, which in turn makes it impossible to prove that something is true, or for that matter untrue. If we accept faith as a legitimate argument for ‘truth’, what happens when we are faced with two (or more) conflicting accounts of faith-based truths?
However, it just dawned upon me one day, after a great deal of thinking, that there is no meaning in claiming that science is “correct”.
Nice! Exactly my sentiments as expressed in my previous comments. If your really into the hardcore stuff, read some Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and other Philosophy of Science people.
Advance Topics
And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?
Flipping this the other way around, can we use science (rational model + empirical evidence) to justify certain religious doctrines? They are societies which have existed for thousands of year and their precepts may have give members a higher level of “evolutionary fitness”. One of these would be the idea of social (hetrosexual) marriage.
Occam’s razor (choose the simplest theory that explains the most).
Never figured out how to a) formulate a variational problem on a space of possible scientific hypothesizes and b) final a unique global minimizer on “simplicity” for this space.
Who knows, maybe five hundred years into the future, people may look back at our times and say
Depending on the time scale, the asymptotic case is not of practical interest. “Yes, I know that expectation of a random walk is almost surely zero, but that may take for ever to arrive at.” I would argue human rights are very useful principals(I will get in trouble for calling them axioms) for society in our current (initial) conditions. They don’t have to be the best principals, just some where close by and better than what we have currently.
Dr. Alwi,
i like to comment on your remarks of June 16. I wonder if it is your observation or your beleif that a small number of people convert to other religion by choice and the others inherited from family. You have observed correctly in so far as Islam but not the others. For example, Christianity CANNOT be inherited or rather no one is born a Christian but it must be by conscious choice and by faith.All Christians became Christian by choice and by faith and no other way and definitely not by deeds.
Angry Doc,
either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.
The truth will set you free.
Sadly, so many attention grabbing professers of religion,
so few practitioners.
If the walk and the talk does not match, something is rotten!
In the recent words of raja petra admonishing his vocal fellow beliver-citizens in Malaysia……bullshit Islam by bullshit Muslims!
Angry doc said:
Belief by faith is in contrast (and by at least one definition) not based on evidence, and this renders religion unfalsifiable, which in turn makes it impossible to prove that something is true, or for that matter untrue.
There is no empirical evidence free of modeling assumptions. If you wanted to find out if smoking causes(correlates with) cancer, you would have to know before hand (a priori) that smoking and cancer were the variables you which examine. You would have to have some beliefs before testing anything.
Just to note, “science” has generate a number of unfalsifiable theories. Freud and his “someone who denies having an Oedipal complex is interpreted as repressing it” is a text book example.
I do agree though that quite a bit of religious reasoning is circular, especially “God/Goddess/Gods/Divine entity made it this way” type.
If we accept faith as a legitimate argument for “truth”, what happens when we are faced with two (or more) conflicting accounts of faith-based truths?
Pick the one which maximizes expected utility. As per my previous remarks, you don’t exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.
There must be a line drawn somewhere and we need to find that.
Religion is a personal belief. The relationship between a believer and the worshipped/god/diety is a direct one-on-one, and not by proxy, group subscription or bulk purchase.
While a believer should be allowed to feel and act the way her religion has taught her to emote and behave, she should not be telling other people how they should lead their lives or influence how they should feel.
Therefore while Singapore has about 45% Buddhist, who generally believe that it is sinful to kill a human or living creature voluntarily, the Buddhists do not impose that on others. They do not advocate the abolition of the death penalty for example.
While some Islamic teachings will have more severe punishments prescribed for certain crimes, such as dismembering of hand/limp for thieves, that is not imposed on the general population.
These religions have respect for the living space and liberty of other lives who share this land. Unfortunately there are some people who do not feel that way. Some are close to behaving like brats, though in disguise as lobbyists, to want to preserve their feelings of divine bliss by dictating that others and none believers should not do this and do that.
When one religious group moves as much as to interfere with the conduct of the lives of other non-believers (and believers who do not agree with their stand), should we not consider that a demonstration of political activism. When religious organisation overstep to try to set markers for how others should lead their lives in this country, I think it is about time they are required by law to register as a political organisation instead of being giving excessive liberty to override the elected government and relevant empowered authorities’ position with incessant complaints, fault-finding, threats, smearing and hatemongering.
When religious leaders use words that can hurt the feelings of some people in the country, it should not be accepted as freedom of speech or freedom to practise their faith. Such behaviour deserves no respect, even if it hurts only a dozen Singaporeans. Causing emotional harm to even one individual is one too many.
Where are our laws to guard against that? Does that make free-thinkers second-class citizens in Singapore since they can be emotionally abused by all and protected by none?
Dear zhummeng,
1) Its not a belief but rather an observation. The fact is that family and societal influences are very very strong.
Indeed - had you been born into a Hindu family in Tamil Nadu - what are the chances that you would be Christian today ?
What if you had been adopted into a Malay-Muslim family at birth ? You ought to know that there are many Chinese children adopted by Malay-Muslim families and they grow up to be good Muslims.
In view of these sort of questions, I am of the opinion that deeds matter most. That beliefs are secondary to deeds. Of course - this is NOT the orthodox Muslim view. But then - I will be the first to say that all organised religions face many philosophical problems and cannot be taken to be literally true.
2) In Islam - everyone is considered to have been born a Muslim ! A baby is pure and sinless. In Islam we do not speak of Muslim converts but instead - we talk of Muslim REVERTS ! Everyone is born Muslim but their family and society make them “others”.
Personally I do not take this view too seriously - although I may be a practicing Muslim. Its too wishy washy. Its always easy to say these things but how do you go about verifying it ?
3) Ultimately there are very serious philosophical problems with organised religion. We live in an era where Science poses a severe challenge to the dogmas of Religion.
Indeed - what is the future of religion should Science succeed in creating life in the labs - albeit just a tiny single celled organism ?
4) I would find it rather strange if family and society had no role to play in influencing one’s views on religion.
Imagine if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, into a Muslim family. What are the chances that you would be a Christian today had that been so ? Clearly very very slim………….
5) In Singapore the influence of Western and Buddhist culture - is certainly in favour of Christianity and Buddhism. Hence the number of conversions to Christianity, Buddhism etc is relatively large as compared to conversions to Islam for example.
But in Malaysia where the Islamic influence is strong - more of the Malaysian Chinese and Indians convert, instead, to Islam rather than Christianity. Indeed in Muslim countries, Christian evangelism towards the Muslim population is under strict prohibition.
Once again - here is a case of social influences at work. I have no doubts whatsoever - family and society plays a very very important role in shaping one’s religious views.
No doubts at all…………….
errata:
you wanted to find out if smoking causes(correlates with) cancer, you would have to know before hand (a priori) that smoking and cancer were the variables you wish to examine.
As per my previous remarks, you don’t need to know exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.
“either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.”
I’m sorry but I think that is a rather meaningless statement which fails to explain anything.
Sprachen Sie Singlish?:
“There is no empirical evidence free of modeling assumptions…. You would have to have some beliefs before testing anything.”
True. Mathematics, which we use to process data, is axiomatic. However, the model which we build based on the assumptions we use allow us to predict observable outcomes. The same cannot be said of religious beliefs.
“Pick the one which maximizes expected utility. As per my previous remarks, you don’t exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.”
Let’s take the subject of afterlife as an example then. If I define the maximal utility to be a good afterlife, how do we go about testing which religion is true?
angry doc said:
Let’s take the subject of afterlife as an example then. If I define the maximal utility to be a good afterlife, how do we go about testing which religion is true?
I would have a problem answering your question in its original form on the other hand, if I define utility as producing warriors which would not hesitate to kill under orders, having the “right” afterlife would make more sense. For example think of the warrior cults in nordic myths that only allow those fallen in battle to enter heaven or forgiveness of sin for crusaders kill muslims during the crusades or the motivations of islamic terrorists in our day and age. You don’t need to be aware that your maximizing some utility to do so, some other completely different justification (like an afterlife) would do.
Certainly that works if you are looking at the utility in terms of producing warriors/killers (something we can observe empirically), but it says nothing about the veracity of religious ‘truths’.
angry doc said:
but it says nothing about the veracity of religious ‘truths’.
You’re right actually, but I’m being subversive.
This is what i’m thinking. Imagine 2 groups of missionaries, lets say Nordic and Pharaohic, trying to convert you. Both groups preach separate ‘truths’ and natural denounce each others ‘truths’ which differ from their own. S o which one would you pick?
I would convert to the one which maximizes my utility. For a Singaporean pragmatist, that would be whoever had the bigger houses (for the dead) so he would pick the Pharaohic group. And naturally, they have big houses because of their afterlife believes.
Oh forgot to mention.
Picking the ‘truth’ that maximizes utility also works in scientific situations.
Research spending and personal is skewed quite heavily toward applied research instead of basic research. Even in basic research, stem cell biology get way more money and attention than abstract mathematics.
Hi,
The title of the post is very apt - Religion and the right to not respect it.
I think brainwashing persons (especially children) to follow a particular religious faith is completely unethical. So is all forms of intolerance.
The spiritual path and all forms of spiritual development are difficult and require effort. It is impossible to put in the required effort if you are not committed ir lack conviction. So forcing a person to follow a path (or respect a religion) is completely useless and in fact is harmful to the person being forced.
AS they say ” A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
There is also the fact that a person who is told that it is his duty to believe will lose the habit of inquiring into truth and questioning what is true and what is false. And this is a quality that needs to be widely encouraged in the modern day with the threats of religious fanatics and other terrorists.
regards
Nikhil
I’ve been reading this with great interest especially on Dr Syed Alwi’c comment. Thank you for your frank opinion. I have been following your articles not only in here but also in Malaysiakini.
I am a Malay and by definition [as in the Malaysia constitution] a Muslim. I grew up as a Muslim and go through all the rituals of attending religious classes including the Quran classes etc. I’ve attended many religious discourses in mosques and suraus with a hope that I could learn something and be a good Muslim but in return it goes on the opposite direction. Just to let you know, I attended all these religious discourse at my own accord, usually on my own without any persuasion from my parents or friends. It’s from this religious discourse that when I started to change. As I continue to listen to them, I began not to like what I’m hearing. Then one day I decided to walk out and never want to go back there again. Do you know why? Just listen to some of the religious discourse and maybe Dr Syed Alwi will know what I’m talking about.
One day while walking along the road and I pass by several Buddhist and Hindu temples, as I stood there and watch these people performing their daily prayers, I am reminded many times of my own religious discourse “these are all idols… if you push all these idols in the drain, they will not be able to get up on their own…… why do these fools still worship these idols” and then something from within began to ask question “these are no fools. Those people who come to these temples are not ignorant or stupid people. They are intellectuals… what do they see that I don’t. That is the beginning of my quest to find out: what am I missing here!
I’ve been approached by the Christians, the ISKON movement and several others. I did not reject them and listen to them politely when they do not come to me, nor do I reject them. I just politely say, thank you, but I have found my own path. My basic ideology is this: Divinity is like one big Ocean and all rivers lead to that big ocean. No one religion has the right to say: Only we have the key to heaven….. Or only we have the passport to heaven.
Many Malays will condemn me for my actions. I am glad I am born in Singapore and not in any other Muslim countries least I will be executed for just trying to exercised my right to choose, but I have no regrets.
I believe religion is a personal choice and shouldn’t be force upon anyone. Line joy is not the only sad happenings in Malaysia. How many more are there being ‘put away’ supposedly in the interest of the society and brainwash for just trying to exercise their rights!
So do you think Dr Syed Alwi religious upbringing and family influences still do play a role in one maintaining their faith? Yes! I support your motion. Lets discuss about [1] Moral policing in Malaysia [2]PAS and Islamic Law ??
An excellent article, and followed by many stimulating comments. When the government setup an online forum to seek opinions on stem cell research, I noticed the relatively high concentration of religious arguments. Having just read Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain at that time, I couldn’t resist expressing my opinion there, that religion really has no right to make the call on the direction of scientific research. After all, shouldn’t the burden of deciding be left to the researchers themselves, who are well-qualified to discuss the issue at hand? Yet there were other citizens who felt that my post was ‘offensive’, just because I said that there was no real need to consult any religions over this issue.
I think that pretty much exemplifies the problem that Joel has described so eloquently in the article. At times, I wonder if it is especially taboo in Singapore because of the looming Sedition Act. After all, who’s to know when your views will be deemed as having ‘crossed the line’? Even now I have vigorously steered away from airing my own opinions on my blog, just in case I go ‘overboard’ by others’ definitions.
I’m definitely going to grab a copy of The God Delusion soon. Don’t know why I put off reading it for so long, despite being an admirer of Dawkins’ prose.
“either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.”
Jiddu Krishnamurthy, one of the great Indian Philosopher remarked :
Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through
observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
Any takers?