Winning Freedom from Religion

Deepak says Muslims will not rise up as long as Shariah law and inflexible fundamentalism are seen as good.

They will also not rise up as long as the Taliban have the upper hand in isolated rural areas, and broadcast on the radio each evening the list of those infidels and traitors who will have their heads removed the next day, and then make good on their promise.

How do simple, scared, people overcome intimidation such as that?

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA

I like much of what Depak Chopra says in this paper. It is a simple truth but easy to overlook that freedoms that are incorporated into a culture are there by the labors of those that came before and put the effort and work in to secure those freedoms. It is an evolutionary process that takes it's own good time. The ability for the common man to participate in choosing his and her government and the freedom to practice, (or not!), a religion were unrealized dreams until relatively recently in history. Even after the inception of America the common man did not have a vote for elected federal offices. The indigenous natives got no vote on anything, and lost it all to Manifest Destiny. Women needed 150 years more to get the vote and a shot at recognition as equals. Blacks longer to be legally recognized as 'equals'. Homosexuals and lesbians are not recognized as equals yet. Muslims in America are eyed with suspicion today while those that literally believe in the Second Coming and Rapture get to lead the country with conservative compassion.

It is valuable for us to remember this. Not only that we enjoy freedoms bought by the labors of those before us, but also that it is too easy to judge those with less privilege and freedom as being backward. We betray our highly touted compassion, tolerance and allowance with our far more obvious and obnoxious prejudice and bigotry if we condemn them for not being where we are now.

Would it not be far better to support their Founders and the spirit of upliftment in their societies? We are not perfected in governmental or religious form by a long shot, and we are in no way without blame or guilt. Texas, state of arguably the biggest ego in the republic while doubtless owner of the highest death rate by injection, chants "Remember the Alamo". Haters of America call out "Remember Falluja, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay".

It is natural to justify and support ones' own beliefs and perspectives, and too quickly negate anothers' beliefs that are in conflict with ours. This neither leads to understanding or harmonizing of conflict.

Hello Gladerunner,

"I see laws as a societal failure. That we have to resort to legislating things is saying that we as people refuse to behave in a civilized manner without having threat of force."

"I would like to see people behave without be forced to behave."

"I would like to see a smarter society, a better behaved society."

It seems to me that this view is naive and very idealistic, but in no way practical or workable. Of course we all would love it if everybody behaved appropriately without needing laws that say they must behave that way. But the whole idea assumes some unspoken collective agreement. How should they behave? What should they do, how should they act? More specifically what should they NOT do, how should they NOT act?

We are all unique and individual and express that individuality in our particular way. There is no way to assure basic common ground for a functional society without specifying the parameters of an individuals actions and behaviours in that society.

You want everyone to be "smarter" and to just behave "in a civilized manner". You have very particular ideas of what "just behave" means, but you think it a societal failure to specify those expectations even as you expect them.

And so, idealistic and naive as well as a set up for judgmentalism and failure.

Paganplace:
“I didn't say you were, I was saying that what you yourself said is actually just what people who hold anarchy as an ideal might say”
Actually I don’t think so, I assume it is because I haven’t explained my point clearly.
I see laws as a societal failure. That we have to resort to legislating things is saying that we as people refuse to behave in a civilized manner without having threat of force.
I don’t see that as anarchical at all. I would like to see people behave without be forced to behave. I would like to see a society where we didn’t need laws or lawsuits that require McDonalds to put warning labels on their coffee cups. I would like to see a smarter society, a better behaved society.
That McDonalds has to warn people that their coffee is hot is a sad, sad state of society is it not?

This is why I say laws are societal failures.

“As for your worries about me 'wanting to ban guns,' ....as I said, the laws that go through make no sense cause the supposed gun experts in the GOP *want* them that way,”
I disagree. Back in the Clinton years, during that gun ban the Democrats were running the full show. They didn’t need the GOP’s support.
If you were to review 20008’s HR 6257, which in one form or another has been introduced to congress year after year, you will see that the bill is very specific about which guns, ammunition and attachments are intended to be banned. Sure it’s in legalese, but that’s not because it’s a NRA issue, that’s just congress.
“, but there was a close up of what looked like 7.62x39 rounds and a mention over thirty shots were rapid-fired. I presume an AK was involved”
Any use of any weapon to shoot innocent people is already criminal. I am not familiar with this incident, but what should be clear is that what the individual(s) did was already illegal with a capital ‘I’. Do you actually believe these guys will throw down their arms for fear of breaking yet another law? You think they will adhere to the five round magazine limit?
How exactly do you propose taking these things away from people who are already possessing them and using them illegally? (illegal possession of any weapon is already…illegal).

Gladerunner:

""PaganPlace: "Well, actually, spoken like a true anarchist: as an ideal, anarchy is living without *need* for laws or government power.""

"I am not an anarchist."

I didn't say you were, I was saying that what you yourself said is actually just what people who hold anarchy as an ideal might say.

It's kind of like being a Libertarian without the capitalistic king of the jungle chest beating, (and subsequent whining about how you're oppressed by 'PC' when someone bops you in the nose for being a jerk,) really.

Being an anarchist is not the same as the *accusation* is defined to be. People who actually hold anarchy as an ideal would have an awful lot of not much to do, if it were as you say.

As for your worries about me 'wanting to ban guns,' ....as I said, the laws that go through make no sense cause the supposed gun experts in the GOP *want* them that way, cause it drags out the 'I'm afraid of the world and feeling un-manned without a fifteen round magazine' vote.

As for what I described as 'negotiating how much risk we're willing to accept, as it happens an awful lot of people died around here this week, ...in one instance, (they don't cover it as assault weapons down here, but there was a close up of what looked like 7.62x39 rounds and a mention over thirty shots were rapid-fired. I presume an AK was involved.

Almost all defensive shootings occur within point blank range and involve less than five shots fired. The idea you need a big gun to protect yourself is mostly a fantasy of bumpkins who quake in their boots if they have to walk through a neighborhood where my grandmother lived all her life.

If you get shot in the city, these days, odds are very much against it being because anyone was aiming at you.

Mr Chopra wrote:
"freedom from religion is one of the rights we enjoy in this country."

Only if you are willing to fight for it Mr Chopra...only if you are willing to fight.

PaganPlace: "Well, actually, spoken like a true anarchist: as an ideal, anarchy is living without *need* for laws or government power."
I am not an anarchist.
I am not calling for the end of laws or the end of government..
“anarchy is living without *need* for laws” I disagree Anarchy is the absence or disregard for laws. Not being without the need for them.

“leaving aside the very practical matter that the actual weapons so banned in cases can end up a bit random”

Exactly. The term ‘assault weapon’ has no fixed definition. Therefore laws to ban them are convoluted. Say what you mean. ‘military style’ suffers the same lack of specific definition. Spell out what it is you are wanting to ban and maybe we can agree.
If you are talking about a weapon with full automatic capability, one press of the trigger releases several round in succession, a ‘machine gun’, then I think you’ll find that such things are already illegal. If you are referring to weapons that LOOK like military weapons, what is the point? All weapons have many more similarities than differences. I can make a BB gun LOOK like a AK47, but that doesn’t make it any more dangerous than a BB gun.
Certain types of armor piercing ammunition are already banned, as are silencers, etc.
I‘m just not sure what you guys are looking to ban.

If you were to say weapons with more than ten round magazine capability, I frankly wouldn’t get too worked up. But everything else you’re going to have problems with, because other than full-auto and obscene magazine capacity, and armor piercing ammo, there is virtually no difference between a military weapon and a hunting rifle.

Like I said, just say what it is you mean. Many, many reasonable gun laws exist already. There are indeed some that want NONE, but I am certainly not one of them.

Peace.

i believe individuals who happen to be muslim share the innate desires for peace, love and harmony, but,

HELP!!!!

i've been asking this question over and over (apologies to those who've seen it) on various threads, but still no answer:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?
please, i would really like to know.

The new Americans
US on the pretext of homeland security went to fight the Talibans along with armies from 35 countries.(Though WMD were never found in Iraq , a pretext to invade Iraq))
Still the mission is not accomplished. Therefore a need arise now to Americanise the talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Billions of dollars are announced to change the old habbits and culture + the religion of these people.(a moderate Islam)
We have to see when the war is won and the mission is declared accomplished.But how long it will take to tame and educate the New Americans, at what cost and within what time frame, does anyone got the idea?

CNNL:

Looking your posts, one finds you are not at all a respectable person.
Hiding behind the internet provides the cowards to use abusive words, however they lose their credibility.
They are given a free hand to insult by the forum managers - is this your defination of freedom?

All Muslims to include the Taliban and the citizens of the Iranian theocracy suffer from the Three B syndrome, i.e. they were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in the Islam, a religion based on the hallucinations of one, mad Arab named Mohammed.

Cut the ties to these hallucinations and the world will be a much better place!!!!

Gladerunner:
""I suppose then that you find anarchy appealing. (justtillthen)”"
"Of course I realize that. That does not mean I recommend anarchy at all. That does not at all mean I support banning nothing. I merely make the point that banning things = less freedom, as a philosophical point. I can make a similar point, that all laws are indicators of societal failure and should be mourned rather than celebrated."

Well, actually, spoken like a true anarchist: as an ideal, anarchy is living without *need* for laws or government power.

As for American ideals of Liberty, though, particularly in terms of the practical need to ban 'assault weapons,' ...

(leaving aside the very practical matter that the actual weapons so banned in cases can end up a bit random, since the supposed gun experts in government don't want any reasonable restraint at all, and the last thing they want is for the legislation to make sense,)

...is that in a free society, what we're really looking for is *Liberty.* Equality, and social harmony, all together.

There is a point to which we Americans love guns as *equalizers.* ...if you put a pistol in my hand, (I don't choose to have one, for other reasons, but I'm trained,) ...I'm actually quite capable of protecting myself against people who might otherwise be able to tyrranize me just with strength of arm or a momentary advantage of numbers.

If you put a military weapon in my hands, or one with the same capabilities, then I might be able to *become* a little tyrant. It ceases to be an equalizer and becomes something else. Something that can make an individual or a small group something more like the kind of warlord (however briefly) that we engage in democracy under Liberty to *avoid* falling prey to.

That's why, since we aren't living in idealistic 'anarchy,' it's incumbent on our society to negotiate just how *much* power enhances our equality, (and how much risk we're willing to accept for the idea) ...and how much undermines it.

Only for those eyes that have not seen!!

The Jewish theocracy described in the OT was nothing more than myth or embellishments if you believe the latest conclusions by most of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.
(Rabbi Wolpe, an On Faith panelist, is among these Conservative Jewish rabbis)

To wit:

New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. "

The foundations of Islamic theocracies are biult on analogous myths and embellishments. Ditto for the Vatican.

"And as it was in the days of Noah (and destroyed them all), so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man... Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; "

Christians are NOT inventing stories. These are events that will happen as foretold by God himself. The instruments of destruction or the "props" are already here with us and what is lacking are the the words "lights, camera, ACTION".

Prophecies are written in codes. Contrary to what unbelievers or some believers think, the "Son of man" is not coming but destruction will come.

And just like in the days of Noah and Lot, he would just be in the background.

The Bible is a script of things to happen. If you want a peek of the future, refer to the Bible.

It's like reading the script of an upcoming movie before it is even shown in cinemas.

Hello Gladerunner,

I guess that I am a little unclear, then, after your reply. You are equating banning things with less freedom while at the same time equating the making of laws with a measurement of societal failure. Are you saying that we are failing as a society, (or as parents in childrearing), if we formalize the laws? That they should not need to be agreed on, ratified, implemented. We should mourn the fact that we made laws to support and uphold collectively agreed behaviors because, why?

The answer seems to be that you expect that these behaviors should be followed by all without needing to voice them or put them in writing. That it should be an unwritten code that all know, somehow, and agree to follow, somehow, but is not set in print or on the books somehow or in some other way make plain.

Societies and cultures vary, and so their laws and custom do as well. Even simpler groupings like families have unique relationships. Without being made clear 'legal' behaviors will not be the norm, or followed, as it is the way of people to be individual and to want independent control of their own behaviors and actions.

You mourn, but I am sure that humans have a need to have collective ethics spelled out, or trouble is sure to follow.

As to the whip quotation, I was only responding to the quote you used of Mr. Chopras regarding assault rifles. The whip was the rifle.

spidermean2: "Those who believe on the Bible as the written word of God will rule the world. That is the prophecy and nobody can disannul it. It's like stopping a storm. It's impossible"

If you really believe this, then frankly, if there is an eternity, I certainly and sincerely would not wnat to spend it with such hateful, narrow minded and self superior souls that will be 'rewarded', if your post is any example of their mindset.

Spidermean2, you are sick. You practically glow in the dark with the infection.

Whether you like it or not , this is the prophecy as foretold by Apostle Paul :

"You know that the saints (or true Christians [not Catholic]) will rule the world, don't you? And if the world is going to be ruled by you, can't you handle insignificant cases? " (1 Cor. 6:2)

Those who believe on the Bible as the written word of God will rule the world. That is the prophecy and nobody can disannul it. It's like stopping a storm. It's impossible.

Liberal evolutionist gay marrying states in America may not exist anymore by the time the prophecy happens. Also a big portion of the rest of the world would cease to exist.

Sad but that's the prophecy.

you are correct, religion in and of itself does not cause all the evil done in its name or under its cover.

But it does lay the groundwork for it. Blind faith means never asking questions. Religious faith is usually accompanied by such weird notions as the christian trinity for example ... things which are logically impossible given the mean of the words used to describe it. The believers accept this logical nonsense into their minds, they are trained not to ask questions .. unquestioning blind faith is touted as a virtue ... their brains are turned to sponge.

It is not the internal myths of the religion which are poison, so much as it is the training in suppressing one's sense of disbelief.

Along came Hitler. How did a civilized people like the Germans fall for this guy?
They wanted to believe. They did not question.

Any sufficiently charismatic leader can come on the scene, feed the sponged brains what they want to hear, get them in the habit of obeying, and there you go.

Freedom FROM religion is the ability, the Duty to question this nonsense, or we'd all end up like that.

Justillthen: “Do you realize that banning no things is anarchy?
I suppose then that you find anarchy appealing.”
Of course I realize that. That does not mean I recommend anarchy at all. That does not at all mean I support banning nothing. I merely make the point that banning things = less freedom, as a philosophical point. I can make a similar point, that all laws are indicators of societal failure and should be mourned rather than celebrated. Laws are created to allow punishment for anti-societal behaviors. That we need to pass laws against even the worst most heinous, unthinkable offenses means that we are failing to mature as social creatures. This of course does not mean I am against enacting new laws at all. Do we celebrate when we have to punish our children for their behavior? Do we measure our success as a parent by how many spankings, groundings and time-outs we administrated? Or do we mourn the fact that we had to do so? That is all I am saying.
“Does the slave, angry and afraid of what the whip has done to himself and who he loves, get to ban that whip?”
Why would he want to ban the whip rather than exact revenge, or bring to justice the person whipping him? The whip itself is benign and might actually prove useful in certain peaceful tasks.
To ban an object because of the way some people misuse it is irrational when that object may actually be useful to others / the majority of responsible users.

Hello Bob2Davis,

"The question becomes, how does one educate the ignorant, the unquestioning, the anti-intellectuals, and those incapable of analysis?"

Believers are not all the idiotic dolts that you suggest, and conventional education does not erase one's belief in the supernatural. There is nothing that it certain related to the existence or non-existence of God. Though we can with more certainty acknowledge that Santa Claus is a myth, and that stories in the Bible or Qu'ran are simply metaphor or generalizations but not literal fact, we can make no judgment on the existence of God or a supernatural Causality.

Perhaps humanity is deluded or just so easily conditioned that belief in fairy tales becomes a 'no-brainer'. But evidenced by the overwhelming number of believers worldwide it is clear there is a deep and fertile ground in human consciousness for the nurturance of the spiritual and ethereal.

The crimes against humanity that you mention are not born of religion. Religion may indeed be born of man, but likewise is the evils done by his hand. Religions have served evil men and empires to justify their deeds, as a blanket covers or a hood obscures facial features. But man is fully capable of all of those evils without the mantle of heavenly righteousness.

Again, it is obvious that Farnaz Masumian will not stop her use of straw men and aliases (e.g. Spark1). She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

Belief in god and religious tenets (pick any religion) is nothing but an intellectual and moral flaw. These beliefs have caused the most heinous of human actions: war, murder, plunder, discrimination, subjugation, to name a few. There is neither evidence nor rationality in these beliefs. The question becomes, how does one educate the ignorant, the unquestioning, the anti-intellectuals, and those incapable of analysis? Those who answer that it is a matter of "faith" simply manifest the above categories. Faith in a god is certainly no different than faith in Santa Claus, elves, wizards, etc. The US adherence to christianity is not much different than islam in Iran -- except the christians kill slightly less people than the muslins do.

Those free thinkers who run this forum select their topic cleaverly. The reader is quickly tempted to go for or against the topic.
In real life the lines are not so stictly drawn.
Religion do not necessarily mean rule by the clergy.
The presently politicians themselves are attached to the religion and make decisions on the basis of their faith, sometimes keeping their agenda hidden.
What the Neo-con + Blair + Spainish and Italian were doing in the recent past is a good example.
Discarding the religion from the daily life means freedom to have abortion, freedom of gay marriages, freedom to use drugs and all the vices carried in the name of freedom and progressive enlightentment.
The clerics in Swat are not going to march on Islamabad anyway. These news are being spread to achieve something else.
While forces of 35 countries, Pakistan and Afghan governments supporting them are there how it is possible for a group of clerks to capture Islamabad.

Hello WMARKW,

You have some purist views.

"Government should be the only entity with the power to makes rules for an individual against their will."

First might be parents. Parents have total control over children, legally and morally, in this country and I think all others. Reasons for this abound, but rationalizations are made into law. Government then is the parent for adults?

"Sharia has no place where it contradicts secular governmental principles."

If the populace did not actively choose their government then they are in the position to either acquiesce to the choices of the government or to seek change. When the consensus of a people allow them to be subject to certain religious beliefs and laws, then it requires a sea change to create an environment where they can bring about greater freedom and the realization of change.

Your pollyanna beliefs belong in dreamtime, but not in the real world. The real world does not adhere to your mores.

Hello Gladerunner,

You should contemplate this again, perhaps:

"You do realize that banning things is the opposite of freedom?"

The ability to ban 'things' is, actually, a freedom. It is the freedom to have control.

Think, man. Did the common man in Nazi Germany have the ability to ban ANYTHING?" Did the government, without the approval of the head of state, have the ability to act on it's own accord in Communist China? Does the slave, angry and afraid of what the whip has done to himself and who he loves, get to ban that whip?

If he could, do you think he would?

Next question would be this:

Do you realize that banning no things is anarchy?

I suppose then that you find anarchy appealing.

It is obvious that Farnaz Masumian will not stop her use of straw men (e.g. Spark1) and aliases. She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

A synopsis of Baha'ism:

"Baha' Ullah taught his followers that all religions come from the same source, and that divine revelation is continuous and progressive. Messengers of God, according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, include Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Buddah. Baha'u'llah was the most recent, the Manifestation of God for the New Era. His was one of the first world religions to preach the unity of the whole human race and to teach that all religions are the work of one God."

Read Farnaz aka Spark1's commentaries as they ooze of Baha'isms.

Religion has been raising human consciousness for centuries. Whatever man is now, whatever little consciousness he has, the whole credit goes to religion. Politics with out religion has been a curse, a calamity; and whatever is ugly in humanity, politics is responsible for.
The fact is that Politics interfere with the religion and for material gains vilify religion.
Writes John Esposito:
"For more than four decades governments formulated policy in the midst of a superpower rivalry that defined the globe and the future in terms of the visible ideological and military threat posed by the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of the cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of communism have created a "threat vacuum" that has given rise to a search for new enemies. For some Americans the enemy is the economic challenge the Japanese or the European Community represent. For others it is an Islamic world whose 1 billion Muslims form a majority in more than 48 countries and a rapidly growing minority in Europe and America. Some view Islam as the only ideological alternative to the West that can cut across national boundaries, and perceiving it as politically and culturally at odds with Western society, fear it; others consider it more a basic demographic threat...........
The causes of the resurgence are many and differ from country to country, but common catalysts and concerns are identifiable. Secular nationalism (whether in the form of liberal nationalism, Arab nationalism, or socialism) has not provided a sense of national identity or produced strong and prosperous societies. The governments in Muslim countries-- mostly nonelected, authoritarian, and dependent on security forces--have been unable to establish their political legitimacy. They have been blamed for the failure to achieve economic self-sufficiency, to stem the widening gap between rich and poor, to halt widespread corruption, to liberate Palestine, to resist Western political and cultural hegemony. Both the political and the religious establishments have come under criticism, the former as a westernized, secular elite overly concerned with power and privilege, and the latter (in Sunni Muslim nations) as leaders of the faithful who have been co-opted by governments that often control mosques and religious universities and other institutions".

Part2
The politicians without overtly confessing their religious affiliations, strongly reflect their ideas in govt policies. Look at the Bush and his neo-con team plus Blair and other world leaders who fought the latest wars to clear the way for second coming of Jesus.

Lastly, The Iranian revolution is a clear example that religion in politics is not a danger to other countries, its another matter that Iraq was encouraged and supplied with lethal arms to fight Iran for several years.
The victory of FIF in elections was never accepted by the west and they were denied right to form govt which lead to bloody civil war in Algeria.
When militant groups such as Hamas try to resort to democratic means their victory was denied by the west.
BJP is a Hindu religious party with extreme views but they seek power and no one cries. There are religious parties in Europe who are in power politics - then why we should deny such a right to the people in Muslim countries.

Today's religions are weighed down with so many flaws and errors in their history, theology and claims to be the one and only way to salvation, they have no capacity to rule countries let alone villages. We predict religions will be extinct or on their way to extinction in ten years.

"More to the point, we have our own struggle to be free of religion if that is our personal choice."

Exactly. Government should be the only entity with the power to makes rules for an individual against their will. Sharia has no place where it contradicts secular governmental principles. Whether it's as Pakistan's legal code; or enforced social custom in Eurabia.

"If we find it noxious, we should take a moment and ask ourselves why the U.S., which enjoys enormous freedom, cannot do a simple, rational thing like ban assault weapons"

You do realize that banning things is the opposite of freedom?