Our violent vocabularies

Hello Yasser,

Nice to hear from you. Perhaps we should set up another thread to go to if this one closes, in case this dialogue continues. I have not been as focused on this avenue so a bit slower in response, for what is going on in my life draws my attention. Ah, the way of things.

"Religion and word of God was the only thing that guided humanity before there were any Nation States or Constitutions or Human Rights Declarations etc. The evolution of humanity as you call it is centrally linked to religion."

The first sentence is pure conjecture. God is an assumption, and though in some manifestation of the definition of God I am a believer, believer is what one is that holds as true that which cannot be proven to exist. Yet, if we agree, (in faith and assumption!), that God exists, we cannot know what may have guided humanity prior to the rise of 'civilization'. Outside of the further assumption that God has guided humanity since it's inception, in the consciousness of humanity as it rose to literacy and formed unions that gave rise to civilizations it may or may not have been the idealization of "God" that humanity found a creative well to draw from.

"It was the Religion and Prophets who first taught us differences between right and wrong."

I disagree, though there is little evidence prior to recorded history that supports any position well. Clearly humanity believed in the supernatural and had Names for Creator. Religion is the oxidization of Spirituality, which is at it's core, I believe, far more free form than serves orthodoxy and calcified "religion".

You said,

“I believe in a core common sense of right and wrong, and I believe that the parameters of that belief is in Karma/Dharma and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". the Theory of Relativity. Action = Reaction. If you kill, you shall be killed. If you raped, you shall be raped. If you adore and love, you shall be adored and loved... Simple and done.”

I have a fundamental disagreement with the Karma Dharma principal in that it doesn’t give morality and deontological ethics any say. So only those actions that harm anyone else are wrong and the rest is ok? I will again cite the incest analogy. Would it be ok if two blood relatives agree to keep sexual relations? It doesn’t harm anyone. Should we just disregard the moral aspects of our acts? I remember there was one such case in Germany where a brother and sister wanted to marry each other but the German government didn’t allow them to do so. In the debate that ensued most of the people sided with the Government, but there was still a tiny minority who were like so what? If they’re happy with each other so be it! I find that attitude similar with proponents of Gay marriages too. I have no doubts that these debates and acts are a testament to the degeneration of the society rather than evolution. Its this differentiation that the ultra liberals fail to make.

Hello Justin,

I myself have no doubts that we have more things to agree than disagree upon. We both see our culture and religion from our distinct vantage points. I would submit that I would rather have a person adhere to some form of religion rather than no religion at all. Although I don’t know if my view is strictly Islamic, but I do believe all religions do stand for goodness in one way or another and its probably a part of God’s plan, as I keep referring it to, as well. Its one of the reason we have a modicum of sanity in this world.

“You need to go back and re-read what was written. It was my assertion that one of the fundamental and "unchanging" aspects of Creation is that 'all things change/die", and so nothing that is extant in the Universe can, over the Influence of Time, remain 'Unchanged'. In other words, all things evolve.”

I don’t think I was able to speak clearly what I meant to say. Religion and word of God was the only thing that guided humanity before there were any Nation States or Constitutions or Human Rights Declarations etc. The evolution of humanity as you call it is centrally linked to religion. It was the Religion and Prophets who first taught us differences between right and wrong. The standards of morality and ethics setup back then, and the examples of some which I listed in my previous post, haven’t evolved into being acceptable now. Although some things have changed like status of women, ending of slavery, democratization etc. but these changes do not really clash with the word of God. Hence they are readily accepted worldwide. Homosexuality is a totally different case. Although acceptance of it is growing, thanks to the positive coverage it get and branding of anyone who oppose it as fanatic, the people who agree with it are still a tiny proportion of the people who do not agree with it. So even though thousands of years have passed by its an act looked upon with disgust by a majority of humanity.

I would be the last person to wanna sound like a preacher but I’ll tell you what I truly believe. Islam is the final evolved form of all religions. It has the answer to each and every problem we face. I will agree that other religious books, be it the Psalm book or Torah or Bible, have changed from time to time and are no more pure word of God. Islam also addresses this problem. The Quran said 1500 hundred years ago that God has undertaken the responsibility of keeping Quran in its original shape forever and so it stays as pure the word of God as was spoken to Muhammad 15 centuries ago. IT IS INCORRUPTABLE! That’s the center of my belief. And yes not everything changes. There are standards of morality and ethics that are universal in all cultures and have remained unchanged. We’re often told in my management class, “the more the things change, the more they remain the same” So at the core of it, most of our problems aren’t as complicated as they seem to be if we take each one of them individually.

Test~!

"Killing, rape, plunder injustice etc. is as wrong today as it has been since the creation of this world."

I believe in a core common sense of right and wrong, and I believe that the parameters of that belief is in Karma/Dharma and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". the Theory of Relativity. Action = Reaction. If you kill, you shall be killed. If you raped, you shall be raped. If you adore and love, you shall be adored and loved... Simple and done.

"I think in some ways its not even a valid debate as I believe in One God and you don’t seem to agree with that concept that God exists and guides us through these religious texts and Holy Men."

Well now, we certainly may both believe in the concept of what we call God, Yasser, and still be at odds in concepts of how that God manifests Itself. I am not a believer in the inerrancy of Sacred Texts as Dictation from God. As I said, altogether human.

Hello Yasser,

;-)

I am pleased that you responded, and did so as you did. There is so much that you said for to respond to. I will do so in order of your comments.

Please fell free to continue the view that you hold of Pamela et al. You have far more experience in considering the beliefs of Pamela and her peers. I have little of the same. I am not a cheerleader for the intentions of "fundamentalists and the neo-cons", so you may rest in the certainty that I do not lean toward any imperialistic belief in entitlement.

In other words, though not knowing you I might deduce that we are more allied in beliefs than at odds. Yet there are glaring differences....

"I fail to agree with your notion. I believe there are human values that cannot and should not change ever."

You need to go back and re-read what was written. It was my assertion that one of the fundamental and "unchanging" aspects of Creation is that 'all things change/die", and so nothing that is extant in the Universe can, over the Influence of Time, remain 'Unchanged'. In other words, all things evolve.

That assumption held true, religion, beliefs, interpretation of Sacred Text, morality, add infinitum, must and does change. So that would also include beliefs of the infallibility of Scripture as extended through the passage of time. So, fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic text as unchangeable and God Gifted, uncorruptable.

Nothing is uncorruptable in this manifestation of Creation, Yasser. If the Word of God does not change, that concept is not valid here. Uncorruptability could only be valid in an aspect of Creation that is divergent from the attributes of OUR FORM OF CREATION! For HERE, ALL things Change, over Time!

Response to posts 1 & 2,

I skimmed through the article the link to which you provided and frankly I couldn’t find a clear acceptance of Homosexuality in Buddhism from it. It does point out “sexual misconduct” as an act to abstain from. The writer explained sexual misconduct by saying:

“Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviours as wrong and other behaviours as right.”

So it’s hard to understand what he’s really trying to say here. Doesn’t pre-marital sex construe sexual misconduct in Buddhism? Given that most homosexuals aren’t married to each other would that not construe unfaithfulness? I believe one reason Buddhism is very popular amongst liberals in the west is that it provides a religious cover to their hedonistic ways of life by these vague loosely given directions which may then be construed as ‘everything goes’ by adherents of Buddhism in the west.

About God’s plan, again I think there is a fundamental difference in our viewpoints emanating from our varying concepts of God, the reason for our existence in this world, afterlife etc. I see your views as somewhat hedonistic in that you say I AM THE BEST JUDGE and that seeking pleasure is the goal of life unbounded by any limitations imposed by a higher being and that you would deny the existence of that higher being if his given way of life differs from your own.

I don’t think I have to detail the differences there are between us and animals. As humans we are tempted towards pleasure seeking and lust. If it results in homosexuality it’s a sin just the same as incest would be a sin and a despicable act. Incest is also a common feature amongst very few humans and animals. Should we also then consider it somehow natural and approve of it. These are the questions where I believe we need guidance from a higher being and not just let our limited knowledge decide everything.

Salamalaikum

Yasser~!

Hello Justin,

I really appreciate your taking time to explain these points in such details. I have much to learn from your posts. That’s certainly the point in having these types of discourse with other knowledgeable people. One gets to know how the others view things that we hold so dearly.

I will continue to disagree with you on Pamela, Irshad Manji, Nonie Derweesh and Wafa Sultans. These women are false Prophets in my opinion for the simple reason that they are associated with the neocon movement in one way or another. If I’m looking to listen to reformists, I’d probably hear Tareq Ramadan or Hamza Yousuf. They are never shy of criticizing the rise of fundamentalism in Islam but also are not looking to turn the core values of Islam upside down to make it acceptable to the West and Neocons. Besides, I believe the Sufi’s were the original progressives of Islam. As long as we have their traditions and teachings to hold on to we do not need these western plants.

You wrote,

“The assumption that a religious tradition 1), is the exclusive truth or pathway to any single goal, (here realization of God), and 2), that the religious tradition is not subject to change, are both contrary to the design of Creation. All things change and are subject to change. No one thing is ever the only choice or path to realization of any one dream, goal, intention”

I fail to agree with your notion. I believe there are human values that cannot and should not change ever. Killing, rape, plunder injustice etc. is as wrong today as it has been since the creation of this world. Homosexuality has been described as a despicable sin in all Abrahamic religions (my knowledge of other religions on this topic is a bit sketchy). I think in some ways its not even a valid debate as I believe in One God and you don’t seem to agree with that concept that God exists and guides us through these religious texts and Holy Men.

I too would like to align myself with the progressives more so than the fundamentalists, but the doctrine I follow is neither of the two. And I certainly don’t think that the progressives would know the absolute truth. They can make mistakes as well. On homosexuals its been there long held stance that these acts are perfectly normal and they attempt to glamorize it through Hollywood etc. further corrupting impressionable minds of the youngsters who look upto these people. There is no vagueness in my mind about these acts. Its written so conclusively in the Quran that I just cannot say its OK and also keep believing in my religion and God at the same time. They both can’t be true and given the choice, I’ll stick with the word of God. I don’t see no convincing proof to go otherwise.

Hello Justin,

Just saw your response, thanks! i'll attempt to answer them tonight.

Salaam

Yasser

What do you think of my replies?

salaam, Yasser.

#1

I do not know why it should be much of a surprise my comments on the stance of some of my Buddhist teachers regarding homosexuality. If you have an understanding of the spiritual path it is not a stretch that homosexuals be seen as just another choice. Certainly not agreed with across the 'buddhist board', but by many. I have posted links from a quick google search on "Buddhism and homosexuality".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Buddhism

You stated:
"One usually associates homosexuality with Christian Priests. I have also heard supporters of homosexuality citing such behaviors amongst animals as proof that God is somehow OK with Homosexuality. SO are we supposed to emulate animals now? They also indulge in incest, should that be OK too? With animals everything goes. They aren’t blessed with senses which we humans have. SO really citing behaviour pattern’s of some animals, doesn’t prove to me that its part of God’s plan."

First, there is no indisputable Plan that is God's, lest it be what IS. If He Created Creation, then what He did is the best "Book" from which to draw an understanding of what He Wants. He Created in animals and in us WHAT WE ARE!

#2

Homosexuality is associated with all religions, cultures, societies, Yasser. There is not one where it is non-existent. We are animals, essentially, with some superior mental abilities. I do not know that we are superior on emotional or spiritual levels, although that is the common assumption. But animals we are. And we have naturally occurring homosexuality, as well as all other forms of sexuality. It could be argued that as a species we are more active in unconventional sexual practices than animals are. Rape is commonplace in many societies, particularly repressive ones. Incest is common the world over, particularly in patriarchally based cultures, as most are. Sex and affairs outside of marriage are practiced at some point by the majority of humans. Multiple wives, multiple partners, battery in relation to spousal rape....

We are not better than the animals. How often in recent as well as historical conflicts have 'soldiers' raped indiscriminately and methodically the conquered women to make impure both the women for "marriage" and the next generation by blood? While killing their husbands in front of them. Janjaweed, anyone? Croat-Serbian conflict?

Female sex slavery is a booming business in many Islamic countries, Yasser. Whites are particularly valuable, I do hear.

Is it just male homosexuality that is so abhorrent in your view? How does female lesbian activity strike you? Interested? Most patriarchally conditioned males think that two women together is just a fine thing, and fertile ground to insert into, so to speak. It is male homosexual behavior that they find repugnant, insertionally speaking. Just fine with two women, no men though. Bias and discrimination are interesting things.

I am heterosexual, by the way. But I do not prejudice against what may bring someone else joy, as long as it does not cause pain to others. Who am I to judge?

Yasser,

I do not know the politics and inner workings of organizations that seek the liberalization of Islam, and I do not know those that are fixated on the fundamentalization of Islam. I may have some more knowledge of the activities of those polarities in the American landscape. Pamela may get paid by some entities whose interest lies in changing Islam to a more equality based system, with basic rights afforded all. That would be a liberalization of the current beliefs, particularly as evidenced by such retro-fundamentalist viewpoints as the Taliban and al-qaida.

I am clear that fundamental interests are financing violent and radicalized 'jihadist' movements. The madrassas financed by Saudi and Iranian money comes from interests that are fully invested in violence as a means to social change and warfare as a form of world 'domination' of Islam over all. I am sure there is more ducats spent by fundamentalist interests than what is spent by progressive interests. So I am not the least concerned by the effect of someone like Pamela, or the others that you name. They are not killing people, Yasser, or sending their programmed bio-bots into markets throughout the middle east to be human bombs, killing indiscriminately. They are not a threat to life, limb, and what liberty exists in Islamic countries.

Hello Yasser,

Thank you for the reply. I was not necessarily labeling Pamela a revolutionary but agreeing that she appears to operate on the liberalized and progressive side of the fence, with orthodoxy and fundamentalism on the other side. My point in a nutshell is that everything in life and in this world changes, eventually. It may take centuries or moments, but change is inevitable. Fundamentalism is the philosophy that aligns with maintenance of orthodoxy and rails against change. Progressivism is the philosophy that strives toward the evolution of a system, seeking adjustment of the recipe as society or needs change.

In context of religions I do not believe that there are any that have not evolved to some extent. All of the Abrahamic religions certainly have. You have sects that claim they follow original precepts, but none to purely. Times have changed and religious views and perceptions have along with them. All alterations, or attempts to hold onto tradition, are done so by human minds and hearts. There is no true orthodoxy. And for good reason. God wrought Creation with change/evolution/death/rebirth/growth as one of the fundamental pillars of it. The assumption that a religious tradition 1), is the exclusive truth or pathway to any single goal, (here realization of God), and 2), that the religious tradition is not subject to change, are both contrary to the design of Creation. All things change and are subject to change. No one thing is ever the only choice or path to realization of any one dream, goal, intention.

This is really the focus of my posts to you. Homosexuality is an interesting enough topic, and certainly one that is controversial for many, but is far less central to me. The polarization of religions and politics are the result of calcification of extremism, be it conservative or liberal. And I am one that tends to see the responsibility of that polarization and corrosion more on the side of fundamentalism. It is the fundamentalists that translate their beliefs into murder and violence, be they Islamic or Christian or Jewish. Or Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, pagan, or fascist. Not the liberals and progressives.

One may argue that Che Guevara was a liberal, and certainly the right wing capitalists would make that argument. One could argue as well that it was the American Revolutionaries that forcibly broke from the English Crown, and they clearly were a liberalizing influence on global politics. But they found themselves in a defensive posture as they asserted their own will.

Today's world sees fundamentalists using violence as the primary means in their attempt to blunt the liberalizing advance of societal, cultural and religious mores.

I agree.

For the first two years of my life, I was fine.

Then, when I learned the word "kill", I killed the family next door, the mailman, the old guy down the street, and have been killing at least a dozen people a year ever since.

If only there were a "Language Reform Commission" to stop me from killing.

And don't ask me about some of the other words that I learned.