Grading Obama's Speech: A For Diplomacy, C- For Religious Dishonesty

Persiflage,

"Plato and Pythagorus may well have been on to something regarding their ideas and insights e.g. archetypal realms....modern day physicists are struggling with the idea that phenomena (including mental constructs) may indeed be holographic in nature - somehow transmitted/projected from more rarified realms."

Plato's thought is haunted by the ghosts of Nilotic theologues.

The text on the 'Shabaka Stone' (c.700BC, quoting 1150BC original) posits that every entity in the phenomemal world is a "word" conceived in the "heart" of the primordial creative principle - in this instance Ptah "artificer". This Ptah actualises his interior cognitions, his "words", by means of speech. In Hellenic terms, Logos as creative agent.

The hieroglyphic script was actually called "words of the god", as it replicated this creative principle. It was an open-ended, analytic inventory of "the existent", the contents of that "heart" that conceives All. Word = actual entity = image ...

Holograms anticipated?

Clearthinking,

"There are no short cuts"

Sometimes there are. Like Q. Courtesy of a certain acutessa.

Thank you for your wonderfully clear precis of Vedanta. "That thou art", and "satyam = atman" *I* have come around to (I know it seems doubtful, belied by my japey cant, but still...) I do baulk at "All else is mithya" though, preferring *All else is is ... well, I dunno ... all else*. Cut to Wittgenstein.

Re Wittgenstein's "Where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence."

As a resistist, I kick at musts. There are always words that can attempt the sheer face. Though they fail and fall, I would sing their vainglorious attempt. There's enough of the Hellene in me, haunting my skull, to thrill, still, to AGON.

Of the chattersome, logophilic Occident, me. Whereof one cannot speak, one can always hum, whistle, versify. Who knows? Perhaps The Word will emerge, or at least, be silhouetted. Or it may shout back "Shaddup already!"

Indeed, WHO knows.

Farnaz,
Avi Sion wrote, "Western philosophical and scientific thought is based on Aristotelian logic, whose founding principles are the three “Laws of Thought”. These can be briefly stated as “A is A” (Identity), “Nothing is both A and non-A” (Non-contradiction) and “Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle). These are not claimed as mere hypotheses, note well, but as incontrovertible premises of all rational human thought."

No one from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell has found a way to critically establish the basis for the 3 "laws of thought". These 3 axioms have to be accepted (on faith?). However, Kurt Godel demonstrated in 1931 using formal logic that ANY axiomatic system like logic or mathematics will have true statements that it cannot prove. This was a very important demonstrations of the limits of logic when searching for "ultimate truth".

Many philosophers in the "West" have realized this in different ways. This was mostly seen in the German philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Nietzche, and especially Shopenhauer. Wittgenstein also realized the limits of language, thought, and logic and wrote in the Tractus: "Where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence." Kant also wrote of the "thing in itself" which is inaccessible to human thought and experience.

Unfortunately, in the West these philosophers were sometimes accused of "mysticism" and their metaphysics substantially ignored, especially Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein. These philosophies have never had a chance to be fully developed. In contrast, in the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years, the philosophers (swamis) were left alone to ponder without the pressure of the church, politics, or "establishment" as in Europe. As a matter of fact, they were elevated to the highest status (Barhmin) in society, but they had to give up all wealth, political power, material possessions, and even their names (this is partially the basis of the ideal caste system). This freed the philosophers of agendas and allowed them to build for generation after generation a system of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics which is internally consistant.
(Continued below)

Farnaz,
(Continued from above)
As I wrote before understanding a purely subjective phenomenon such as my thought requires a different valid methodology. The scientific method is great for studying the objective universe, including the body and the brain. However, the mind, intellect, and consciousness are different from the brain and have to be understood/known by a different method. This is the goal of Vedanta.
The terms mind (mana), intellect (buddhi), and consciousness (Self, Atman, Brahman) do not have the same meaning in Sanskrit as we usually associate in English. To "understand" the meaning of these words in the context of Vedantic philosophy takes time and requires not only study, but meditation and self exploration under proper guidance (usually a guru).
It is like the difference between knowing E=MC(2) and really understanding what it means. Everybody "knows" the equation, but how many of us really understand it. It would take years of study in a University with a Physics department, labs, professors, books, mathematics, etc. There are no short cuts. Here are some definitions of the Self in brief:
"That thou Art"
"The Truth (satyam) is the Self (Atman, Brahman); all else is illusion (mithya).
"Om"

Onofrio, Farnaz, Clearthinking -

Looking over the Aristotle link, it's easy to see where certain Catholic apologists are coming from.....with Aquinas picking up where Aristotle (and Augustine) left off.

Conventional logic surely dead-ends in metaphysics and perhaps in certain schools of psychology. But nobody says it isn't useful!

The paradox - Zen and quantum logic both say that Schroedinger's cat in the box is equally dead - and not dead. Koans are notably designed to defeat circular logical processes (and metaphysics) with spontaneous insight - beyond thought.

Still viable - Plato and Pythagorus may well have been on to something regarding their ideas and insights e.g. archetypal realms....modern day physicists are struggling with the idea that phenomena (including mental constructs) may indeed be holographic in nature - somehow transmitted/projected from more rarified realms. While still hypothetical, this idea has growing currency among certain theorists.

Phenomena with distinct 'identities' somehow emerge from basic space -
still quite a mystery!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Cleathinking:

Re: the "West" and thought

Epistemology, metaphysics, cognition, psychology...?

Clearthinking:

"3: There is no valid means of questioning or understanding the "laws of thought" in western dualistic thinking"

But Western philosophy does question the "laws" of thought, at least the dispositions. One great question, for example: Is there a priori synthetic knowledge?

Also, the "West" questions more mundane dispositions, e.g., stereotyping, in all senses, typing.

Question: What is "self" in the East?

Onofrio,

Many thanks! LOL! Right facing arrows spurned posting. Feat Ouroboro foiled. Ouroboro(-ism?). Q

The "laws of thought" are the essential component of logical thought. However, the key word to understand is "thought".

1. What is the valid means of understanding the objective universe (including the body and brain)?
2. What is the valid means of understanding one's own thoughts or mind?
3. What is the valid means of understanding and critically analyzing the "laws of thought" themselves?
4. What is the valid means of understanding the subjective self?

Only question 1 is easily answered in the "West" and the "East". The answer is the scientific method and logic.
The answer to question 2 is meditation. This is a systematic process which allows the calming of the mind and subsequent valid introspection. The introspection reveals the right understanding (viveka or discriminative knowledge) that the mind does not exist and is only the illusion of flowing thoughts. Thoughts are created by input of the senses combining with the inherent desires (vasanas) related to the separate "I" consciousness. This is very difficult to describe in a few short sentences.
The answer to question 3: There is no valid means of questioning or understanding the "laws of thought" in western dualistic thinking. They have to be accepted (faith?) In Advaita Vedanta, there is no need to understand the laws of thought because "thought" has been understood and negated.
The answer to question 4: In the west, there is either no answer or denial of the existence of the subjective. Both are unsatisfying and incorrect. In the "East" the answer is unequivocal. Understanding the Self is essential and the method is Vedanta. A lot more needs to be said at this point to someone new to Vedanta, but this is not the place. If interested, one will find a way.

Farnaz,

You kann much.

You certainly kann wield a Q with glyphic nous! I salute!

A whole genealogy of Athensism, in just one stroke. Brilliance.

Onofrio,

Ich kann nicht. :

Onofrio,

Part of last posting cut off at the head, non ouroboroistically. Heroically hurry me back.

identism Athens(ism). Ouroboro. Q

Identitism => Athens(ism). Ouriboro Q

Onofrio,

Nefele (Nephele)= maya? No A, at all? Neither of the above?

"Identity, thy name is Confusion."

The identity of identity?

Such identitistic pessipositivism ;-)

Or Jewish and black, or black and Jewish, or black Jewish, or just Jewish, or just black.

Identity, thy name is Confusion.

Farnaz,

My favourite -ism logism is prism (ha! no ism logism at all!). That would make me, um, a prismist, which evokes a mincing fog, a faux-Nephele swaying awry in too-steep stilettos.

I love the prism for its capacity to show that the one light is, in *fact*, all colours. Jew and black too, yet still Jew, still black.

And yet, even such sunny analytics can make a prison of a prism, if not held lightly.

What to do? Be a little Quasiprismistically Mysticynical :-)

Onofrio,

Did you know that "democratism" is a word? This could cause a schism in -ism. Athens redux.

Hi Onofrio,

" Aristotelian precision has its fair potential share as well. If a hazy monism can become a swamp, an implacable logic can become a guillotine."

Absolutely. Just as surely as A is not A.
Is a Jew a Jew? Is a black man a black man?

On the other hand, Sion attributes a wink to the sage, note. (@ (Glyph = wink.)

Persiflage,

Thank you for sharing Keso's clearsighted candour, and for Kerouac's fond (and poignant) rucksackery.

Consider me delighted and instructed.

Vive le Moonage Daydream

Farnaz, cont'd.

(I'm thinking aloud here, from post-puff limbo)

Avi Sion:
"The anti-Aristotelian position may be viewed, in a positive light, as an anti-Nominalist position, reminding us that things are never quite what they seem or that things cannot be precisely classified or labeled."

That makes it potentially edifying, and not a bad thing, though to be used with caution, certes.

continues:
"But ultimately, they intend the death of Logic; for without the laws of thought, how are we to distinguish between true and false judgments?"

Suddenly, a thin-ended wedge appears. Attributing logicide and legicide to guru-monistic rhetoric is OTT, IMO, being rather tricksily reliant on anthropomorphism. Who will defend poor Logic from those monistic lambs-that-spake-as-dragons?

If we're talking deplorable consequences, Aristotelian precision has its fair potential share as well. If a hazy monism can become a swamp, an implacable logic can become a guillotine.

O Avi Sion, Nagarjuna, can we agree not to play one game by the rules of another!

Hello Farnaz,

I followed your link and nearly drowned in Avi Sion's oceanic acumen. Yet, even as the ninth wave crested, I gleaned that Nagarjuna was being construed a tradent in strawmen; specifically, that he was able to dismiss logic only by misrepresenting it.

At this I laughed and laughed (which is of concern):

"funnily enough, Nagarjuna appeals to our logical habit in his very recommendation to us to ignore logic."

Ah, ouroboros again. We cannot help but bite our own tails. And without such self-consumption, we could not exist!

(And he promptly vanished, like Douglas Adams' god, *in a puff of logic*...)

Clearthinking, Persiflage, Onofrio, All,

Re: My last post

Meant to write: For a Logician's take

Clearthinking, Persiflage, Onofrio, All:

What heartful wording, Persiflage!

For a ogician's take on Nagarjuna that becomes interesting, here's a link.

http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm

Apropos of Shogaku--All oneness may be quite useless.

Farnaz

Back to the topic:

BO's speech apparently is being heard in parts of Pakistan:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/09/pakistan.anti.taliban/index.html

For Onofrio -

For twenty years I've sought the Other.
Now, letting go, I fly out of the pit.
What use oneness of mind and body?
These days I only sing la-la-la.

- Keso Shogaku, 15th C

I see a vision of a great rucksack revolution, thousands or even
millions of young Americans wandering around with their rucksack going up the mountains to pray, making children laugh and old men glad ... Zen lunatics who go about writing poems.

- Jack Kerouac (1922-1969)

One was, is, will be, becomes, is nought,
is One, One was, is, will be, becomes,
is nought, is One, One was, is, will be,
becomes, is nought, is One, One was, is,
will be, becomes, is nought, is One, One was,
is, will be, becomes, is nought, is One

(Song of the Circler)

Clearthinking, Persiflage, Farnaz,

Sages three,

So much lucid Vedantic unity calls forth my putrescent pedantic murk.

(O aid me, Vital Rot, that stirs up worlds!)

I would contend (as devils must) benignly in favour of Duality.

As I've said aforetimes, with ouroboric brio (ah, that old serpent!), Zero is One turned upon itself.

Zero and One are the primal duality. And non-duality too, depending on your view.

One is already Two, and Two is already both Half and Many, difference and increase, and the Many are fractions and whole refractions of the One.

Before there were yet two things there were...two things.

Though here an Apostle of the Twain, I am yet one of thine.

Fondest Regards.

Clearthinking,

Thanks very much for your post! Very lucid, helpful!

Farnaz

Clearthinking - well said!

Persiflage and others,

Vedanta and Bhuddism share many significant concepts. One of the differences, which may not even matter, is the accepted authority in the belief system. The only accepted authority in Vedanta is knowledge itself. Even metaphorically in the Gita, Krishna does not claim authorship for the ideas that he presents and represents. The idea is that one should be respectful of the concept of Unity (i.e. Brahman, Atman) not a person, god, or idol. In Buddhism, it is the knowledge that Buddha imparted not the man that should be revered. This is the case for most Buddhists. In Hinduism, the Buddha is worshipped as an avatar because he brought knowledge to people. But worship in Hinduism has a different meaning. Worship is essentially respect and reverence, and everthing is worshipped - cows, trees, elements, planets etc. But this is not the same as "idol worship". Worship (Bhakti) develops humility, which prepares the mind for further spiritual development through right action (dharma) and right knowledge (gyana).

I think it is important not to interchangeably use the words "soul" and "Atman". This leads to confusion because these two words have opposite connotations in regards to nonduality and duality. Nonduality is very difficult to think about, let alone deeply understand. But the word "soul" clearly belongs to a philosophical system that fundamentally accepts dualism. And if someone is trying to understand Advaita (nondualism), it is important to remember that there is no separation or relationship between your consciousness or soul or ego or "I"-ness and the universe.

I agree with Farnaz that Judaism is different for Christianity and Islam. Judaism is broader and includes elements of culture and has room for mysticism like Kabbalah. I am not very familiar with Kabballa, but it seems to still be ultimately a dualistic philosophy. Also, Islam has mysticism in the Sufi tradition. However, this has developed and thrived mostly in the Indian subcontinent, and it is diminishing today in Pakistan and Kashmir as the influence of Hinduism wanes and Wahabi Islam increases. The promotion of the mystical traditions will help to diminish the tribal tendencies of religion, decrease conflict and violence, and promote spritual growth.

Back to the topic:

These Afghans apparently heard BO's speech-
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20090608_Bombing_mobilizes_local_Pakistanis_to_attack_Taliban.html

And an off-topic comment:

For those that want an update on what Conservative Jews are saying about Judaism see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

"The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.''

The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''

For anyone interested in the bare bones of mainstream Jewish theology, in all its diversity, the following are essential: Maimonides, Yehuda ha Levi, Franz Rosenzweig (enormously difficult, especially in translation: secondary sources highly recommended), Martin Buber, Joseph Ber (Yosef Dov, Yoshe Ber) Soloveitchik, Abraham Joshual Heschel, Emmanuel Levinas (almost as difficult as Rosenzweig, especially in translation: secondary sources, highly recommended), Mordecai Kaplan.

ccnl's "back on topic" is off topic, as usual. It is the dishonesty that is the problem.

Hi Persiflage,

It would be good if OnFaith would make room for a discussion about Vedanta and Buddhism. With you, Clearthinking, and Onofrio, we'd be off to a very good start among threaders.

I originally posted what follows as a part of a reply to you on Rabbi Hircshfields' thread on the Tiller murder. I probably should have posted it here:

"Regarding your linking of religions to a personality--this is very much the case with Christianity and Islam, not so much with Judaism, which is forever on guard against idols.

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Jews are never taught to model themselves after a prophet or God. Christians are to model their lives as closely as possible after Jesus, Muslims after Mohammed. Any Jew who asked, "What would MOses do?," would be shipped off to a mental hospital ASAP.

Moses, in no way, is the Judaic equivalent of Jesus or Mohammed, as you know. He is the greatest prophet, according to Rabbinic Judaism, because he experienced as much of the deity as a human could, because he was chosen to convey the principles. He was great, in other words, because he was considered great by the deity.

HOwever, during Passover, when Jews read the Hagaddah, narrating the Exodus from Egypt, Moses' name is NOT mentioned, not once. Anti-idolatry.

He does not have a way with words and so cannot deliver the message himself. He dies at Mount Pigsah, but no one knows where. There can be no shrine. He does not go to the Promised Land. There can be no deification of humans, nothing approaching it. Anti-idolatry."

Also, maybe you'd like to post here the links you recommended on R. Hircshfield's thread?

Farnaz

Back on the topic:

Apparently BO's speech was not heard in Iraq and Pakistan. From yesterday's headlines:

"BAGHDAD - Teenagers armed with grenades and suicide vests are the latest recruits for Sunni insurgents trying to find new ways to outwit heightened security measures and attack American and Iraqi forces, the U.S. military said yesterday."

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A recent surge in suicide attacks in Pakistan reached the capital yesterday when a man wearing an explosive-laden jacket attacked a police compound but was shot down before he could enter the main building. Two officers died and six others were wounded, police said."

"PESHAWAR, Pakistan - An attacker wearing an explosive vest blew himself up inside a packed mosque during Friday prayers, killing at least 30 and wounding 40 more in northwest Pakistan, officials said."

Farnaz and Clearthinking - I was taken with your discussion re. Vedanta, and find that preferencing this great philosophy over all others avoids the particular (IMO artifically manufactured) divide between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, and in paricular, the extrapolations of Nagarjuna on Emptiness/Sunyata - e.g. the Madhyamaka School of Buddhism. Emptiness is only half of the equation - with primal awareness being the other necessary element.

BTW, I appreciate that we have someone here who has real expertise in Advaita Vedanta.....

As for me, I believe the differences are more contrived than real. What, in fact, is the difference between the idea of the Atman of Vedanta and the Primal Awareness of Buddhism?

Neither philosophy subscribes to the idea of an eternal individual soul (anatman) but that doesn't preclude the idea of Atman as also being the essential reality in Buddhism. The Dharmakaya is the same for both. What this may be does take an awakened mind to discover. And that is the Mind of Buddhism and the Atman of Vedanta. Why get hung up on personalities?

best regards -

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html

Clearthinking1:

In fact, I am interested in the Vedas. This is a web site I visit whenever I can:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/vedicsection/vedaindex.asp

Farnaz

Clearthinking:

Thank you for your reply. Truthfully, I expected something of the sort. Vedanta, I suppose could be separated from "Hinduism." The situation of the DAlit in India is an abomination. NO amount of star Dalit will change that. We are talking about one hundred seventy million people, minimum. Some put the number at two hundred fifty million.

There are also Dalit in Pakistan and Bangaladesh, although Quran specifically prohibits caste. Quite simply, religion, any religion, wedded to patriarchy and politics, is deadly.

Nor can all this be laid at the feet of British colonialism, a blight on the earth, I quite agree. The British did not produce the 95 separate mafias in India any more than it produced Daud Ibrahim. The British are not responsible for the ongoing shenanigans that India pulls with Bangaladesh.

My goal here is not to attack India. I have no axe to grind. I just don't like self-delusion.

YOu are correct when you say that progress is being made with the Dalit via quotas. It is, however, a huge problem in a country filled with huge problems. The plight of the overwhelming majority is akin to slavery, is, for many, quite literally, bonded labor.

Next week, in London, the first international conference on "untouchability" will take place. Combined with the efforts of the Dalit, themselves, particularly Dalit academics in the US, physicians and human rights activists worldwide, and the ever pointless UN, we can only hope that something will begin to change.

Some things could change tomorrow, if there was only the will, for instance, the end of that horror known as scavenging, in India, "sweeping" in India and Bangaladesh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAdYtDLp0hU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit

Farnaz1Mansouri1,

Many people perseverate on the same criticism of Hinduism and caste. This is because of a lack of understanding of some fundamental concepts.

1. "Hinduism" is an english word with literally no direct translation to Sanskrit or a language of the Indian subcontinent. According to the OED etymology, "Hindoo" was the english word for people not identifiably Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, etc living in India. This then became Hindooism in english in an attempt to define the rituals, culture, "religion", social systems present in "India" at that time.

2. In the West, "Hinduism" has become an overly broad term referring to "religion", culture, philosophy, mythology, rituals, and social structure of a billion diverse people spanning a history of thousands of years.

3. This makes it easy for someone with an agenda to pick and choose any issue for criticism and then attach it to "Hinduism".

4. The fact is that there is no equivalent "religion" called Hinduism as understood in the West. In India a system was developed which we can call "Sanatan Dharma", but this is very different from the english word "religion". There is no Prophet, founder, cult leader, Holy Book, or God. Cult is a derogatory word in english, but it is appropriate for entities usually called religion. Examples of cults with founders include Judaism (Moses), Christianity (Jesus), Islam (Mohammed), Buddhism (Buddha), Jainism (Mahavir), Zoroasterism (Zoroaster), Sikhism (Guru Nanak).

5. So, Hinduism is best understood by its underlying monistic philosophy of Unity - Vedanta. There is no founder or prophet (by design). Overlying this philosophy are thousands of years worth of complex mythology, rituals, folklore, and diverse local customs of a billion people.

6. Some people are attracted to or need the rituals, others to mythology, and others to philosophy.
(continued below)

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
(continued from above)
7. The caste system is a social problem, like slavery. The vedas (including upanishads) do not state that caste is by birth. Even the Gita talks of "mixing of castes" but does not say that caste is defined by birth. It is defined by the tendencies of the individual (e.g. towards philosophy, leadership, business -- desire to gain knowledge, power, money in life) Even the Mahabarta has examples of people born in a family of one caste but living a life of a different caste.

8. Caste by birth is a socially oppressive system and is a degeneration of the Vedic ideal of Dharma, performing ones duties in life peacefully. The caste was supposed to create balance of power in society by limiting control of knowledge, politics, and money by any one group.

9. Stratification exists in all societies. Even today someone has to be the janitor and someone the Professor, CEO, Senator, doctor. Opportunity should be available to all equally, but all societies struggle with this.

10. A useful analogy is slavery in America and Britain. A "low caste" slave could be owned by another human being in America till 1865. They were sometimes whipped, raped, or killed with impunity. The U.S. constitution defined a Black male as 3/5 of a person. This has changed for the better over time.

11. Similarly in India, "low caste" Dalits were treated poorly, but not as badly as Blacks in America. During the 1800's, reformers like Swami Dayananda, Swami Vivekananda, and then Mahatma Gandhi began the process of change. A Dalit wrote the Indian Constitution, not a Brahmin like Nehru or a Vaishya like Gandhi. A recent President, current Speaker of Parliament, and current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India are Dalits. Very substantial quotas exist for jobs and universities to lift up the underpriveledged. By analogy, this would be like having a black President, black Speaker of the House, and black Chief Justice today in America with quotas for blacks at all elite Universities.

12. So, the philosophy of Hinduism creates a tolerant peaceful society capable of reform. Mahatama Gandhi was from a "low" business caste, and it did not matter. People will believe whatever they want to about Hinduism according to their personal agendas. "Enslaved Dalits" as you call them are enslaved more by a lack of economic development and opportunity. This is more a result of centuries of colonialism when the economy was not allowed to develop and the advances of the industrial revolution were actively blocked in the British colonies. World class universities, economic growth, representative democracy, and progress are flowering now after the British left India.

Brilliant article, Susan. If nothing else, you're bringing important points (facts) to light for many others to see who are probably not aware of the post-theological world's contributions to human rights efforts. I think Obama has locked himself into showing favoritism for religious viewpoints with his campaign as well as with his support and expansion of the faith-based initiative. Also, this may not be the best time for Obama to address secular contributions. It would perhaps be better to bring up such issues over time or in private conversations with Middle East leaders.

clearthingking`

"This is why Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroasterianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i have found refuge among Hindus for 2,500 years."

May I ask how the foregoing fits in with caste? How it fits in with 170,000,000 enslaved Dalit? You have, I would imagaine, read the Baga vad Gita, registered the analogy of chaos to "caste mixing"?

I'm not being sarcastic. I would just like to understand how you continue to hold out Hinuism as exemplary. There are other questions I might ask in this regard, but I will end here.

Dear Susan,

I see nothing has changed...

Religions are usually tolerant until they lay their hands on the power of the state. At that point, they become intolerant and dictatory. Virtually every major conflict in the world over the past thousand years has organizaed religion as one of the major root causes.

Part two

Religion in such a political/economic situation as we see in the West becomes more and more a thing of the individual, something private no matter how much religion strives to remain an outward and visible organization, a meeting of like minds before God. What remains of true religion becomes "cultic behavior" and/or "religious fundamentalism". Religion watered down, less and less true religion, becomes going to church every now and then and more and more a thing to be kept to oneself--for if there is to be outward and visible organization it must become more and more modern instrumentality toward an increased efficiency of human capitol and eventually the creation of more and more sophisticated humans. Where once man looked up and saw God (in Western civilization) now he looks up and conceives a better body politic--future comes more and more to be a better human society and not a city of God let alone God. A city of God does not resemble modern society let alone the direction man is heading. As a society becomes more and more sophisiticated it becomes a city in which for all curtailing of freedom (rampant behavior as seen in less sophisticated societies) man comes to be breathed out as if petals on a flower, and there is no God worshipped--rather man is thankful for and to himself. The city born is one of man's humility and pride, vanity, jealousy and envy cast aside and a society of increasing mutual respect born, God in the details--and the details paradoxically explaining more and more, details reinforcing one another, a consistency seen, society firm and capable of being developed indefinitely...

And such a society is not at all compatible with the monotheistic religions--or possibly any religion for that matter. Certainly it is not compatible with Islam. To believe such is to be ignorant--or at worst a liar. I believe that with each passing day ignorance in this matter is being dispelled but that man cannot just come out into the open and state what is occurring. An indefinite period of lying occurs. But the best educated must see what is occurring--and the politics and economy of a modern society depend on the best educated, so...our officials are lying. Eventually one day the truth will have to be faced. And hopefully at least Christians and Jews will take it well...But as for Islam, that might be another problem. We should face the problem head on. It really is man against religion because he is more and more becoming able of taking care of himself.

Part one

Obama in the Muslim world. Or more directly, the truth or falsity of the statements of the U.S. with respect to the Islamic world.

The United States generally takes the position with respect to the Islamic world of saying that U.S. values, technological advancement are compatible with Islam and that the U.S. is only troubled by Islamic extremism and does not hold any grudge against the less extreme members of Islam. The U.S. says that it believes in freedom of religion and that any religion has a place in the U.S. so long as it does not descend into extremism. I contend that the position of the U.S. above is at best ignorance and at worst a flat out lie. In the United States--and the Western world generally--what has occurred where once man looked up to God and had more invested in God than in practicalities on the ground is an upsurge of practicality and what has come to be called science. Where once cathedrals were erected to God a new foundation and sensibility has sprung up.

The average Westerner lives in a world which is a man made instrumentality which has brought down as much God into Western civilization as possible by paradoxically not being really concerned about God at all and instead being concerned about structures of all types which stand out from nature and which even though circumscribing an individual's life, curtailing many freedoms, works out on average to give the individual a quite comfortable life and the possibility of conceiving more efficient and rewarding instrumentalities in the future. Whereas religion in general (as understood by the monotheistic religions) demands certain rituals for a bringing of God into one's life and an elevation of man to God--a reconciliation between man and God--the modern society in the West has each person as best as possible utilizing what he is capable of and fitting into a structure which demands daily to become more sophisticated, more capable of utilizing human capitol, and ideally one day creating humans by biological methods who are super capable at creating instrumentalities which in turn create even more sophisticated humans...

harveyh5,
i think that's largely what obama did. he told people to live by the "good parts" of their books (and ignore the bad parts.)

Very valid criticism of President Obama's reverance for the Koran and Bible. Wish the President instead had praised those who follow the Koran, the Bible, and other religious texts to the extent it helps them live a more moral life in line with universal standards of equal rights for all regardless of religious faith, nationality, or sex, but condemn those who view such texts as the inerrant word of Allah, or God, or consider them anything more than moral fables.

I heard two commentators appreciating the Obama speech on Chris Mathews' show on MSNBC this evening Their point was that the Obama way is the right way to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims around the world.

Ironically, headlines underneath on the T.V. screen were saying that Mr. Netanyahoo and the Israelis have rejected the demand from our President to halt the construction of settlements.

Putting the two together it is obvious that Obama will have to follow through by providing results. If he can not deliver, it might result in a renewed disappointment of the young Muslims and increase their disillusionment with America.

Susan,

Although you make some good points, you seem to live in a very limited world. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the only religions in the world. As a matter of fact less than half of the world associates itself with these religions.

Religious tolerance did not come from European enlightenment and secularism only. Many secular leaders and people are extremely intolerant of religions and other beliefs (Stalin, Mao, Hitler...). Europe has struggled with deep religious intolerance as recently as the Holocaust.

Religious tolerance is only difficult when supremacist attitudes are built into religions. For examples, a true believing Muslim or Christian cannot accept that another religion is equally good as a path for spiritual growth. They have to claim superiority.

On the other hand, Hinduism (based on the philosophy of Vedanta) allows all to develop and follow their own path to spiritual growth. This is why Hinduism seems so complex on the surface. The oldest (~7000 years) known religious text in the world, the Rig Veda (1.64.46), states: "That which is One, the sages call by many names."

This is why Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroasterianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i have found refuge among Hindus for 2,500 years. It is no accident that tolerance, pluralism, nonviolence(ahimsa), vegetarianism, Yoga, Vedanta, and concepts of Nonduality and Unity arose in this environment.

So please expand your horizons and open your mind to see what has happened throughout the world. The same old Religion vs. Secularism paradigm from recent European history is not very useful for analysis of religious tolerance.

Sorry folks. O have big fingers, a small phone and a bumpy train.

Your historical accuracy stinks. Packistan was the first country to fave a frely elected femail leader. The ERA died a deadt of negelect in the USA.

I am sorry, but I give your essay a D- for using a facily as your basis. I would have given it an F but as clearlr a not-a-muslim you can be forgiven a bit for getting the muslim statement of religious tolarence wrong. Muslims are required to protect the religious freedom of the people of the book as long as they do not attack others. That last phrase means ther are required to come to the aid of the oppresed and fight the opressor. With the violence by thechristians in expelling the jews and muslims from andelusa the made themselves objects of the last phrase. The jews that were expelled continued to live with the muslims in other lands. Unfortuinitly, the christians have not given up their violence towards others, ww1, ww2, the troubles, colonialism, ect. Since that time.
The tolarance of the inlightenment, like the math and science of the enlightment came from Islam. D-

Susan,
While we’re all familiar with the examples religious intolerance throughout history, I continue to be surprised by the lack of mention of secular intolerance. The Gulag Archipelago, the Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields are not exactly monuments to human rights, and are typical examples of the kind of violence and brutality that exist in societies that try to clean up the ‘mess’ that religion creates.

No faith can ever escape the accusation of being intolerant at one point or another in their history, despite their impressive accomplishments. And neither can ‘secular thought.’ That’s why you get the same grade as Obama.

Tis good to see that hsnkhwj and Farnaz agree with each other sometimes while other times there is the appearance of "straw menning". Farnaz does have a large number of such friends

i.e. Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123 MANSOUR112, hsnkhwj and Zebra4

If only such friends could back up their comments with references about Jewish refugees from Iran other than seeing parades and visiting cities.

Kudos to Farnaz's latest post except her figures about Pakistan's lawyers' movement and the number of Iranian Jews are exaggerated.

We must understand persecuting Jews or people of any religion, race, linguistic group or even sect is not acceptable.

All humans should speak out against persecution.

I always find it interesting when viewers like Susan Jacoby and others seem to confuse good manners with dishonesty.

Obama's version of politics is bridge-building and inclusiveness, not divisiveness. This means that when initially talking to someone, you talk about points in commmon - views that you share. In this form of politics, you don't start worrying about the things that make you different until you feel comfortable with the things that make you similar. This is not "dishonesty". Dishonesty would be saying one thing and thinking another, or saying one thing in public and something different in private. Dishonesty would be deliberately presenting untruths.

About 1/3 of the Op Ed columns in the Post seem written by authors more interested in showing how the other side is wrong than trying to move forward in partnership. It's pretty disappointing, really.

Susan,

There is much I have to say regarding your essay, but for now, I will say that the "tolerant side of Islam" resides in Muslims, just as the tolerant side of Christianity resides in Christians.

You forget that under Musharraf, our man in Pakistan (one of many of our men, more on whom later) one million Pakistanis marched to Islamabad demanding the restoration of the Judiciary.

There are countless numbers of tolerant Muslims. I have met many more than I can possibly recall, quite honestly, exceeding the number of tolerant Christians.

Religion wed to patriarchy and politics is deadly. It has always been, both in the Middle East and in the West. Just recently, it killed Dr. Tiller.

Walter:

"i wish they'd quit building on to those settlements. i suspect they view them as a long-term bargaining chip."

I don't know. It is interesting that B.B won, albeit by the slimmest majority, but he won over the very popular, infinitely capable Livni. B.B. is not a man one tells what to do. It just is that way. No amount of threats, no consequences for "misbehaving," nothing. With B.B, we're in a very different ball park.

Still, Israeli politics being what it is, one assumes Labor will be or is already up to something. Even if Labor manages to prevail over Netanyahu, the people will need to see something tangible. I doubt whether "right to exist" will do it this time. "Land for peace," with no sign of peace.

Then, too, whatever their ambivalence about the settlers, other Israeli Jews don't much like it when people tell Jews not to have children, which is what Obama's pronouncement amounted to. Jews have heard that before. Context is everything. Know your audience. Know B.B.

It's a tough call. Two people's, both radicalized to some extent: 2009.

Farnaz continues to note that there are over one million Jewish refugees from Iran.

Tis strange based on the following statistics:

"At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 140,000–150,000 Jews living in Iran, the historical center of Persian Jewry. Over 85% have since migrated to either Israel or the United States, with the migration accelerating after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the population dropped from 100,000 to about 40,000.[23}
ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran

Actually the Baha'i cult has a larger Iranian population estimated to be between 300,000 and 500,000. They are also persecuted by the Muslim authorities in Iran and many have come to the USA as refugees. (see Google for many references)

To all those who keep harping on the past. President Obama in early part of his speech cautioned us against bickerings of the past.

Where do we go from here?

IS IT MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?

Is it :"YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US?"

or is it the Obama way?

farnaz,
no doubt it's extremely frustrating that the palestinians didn't go for the two-state solution any of the many times it's been offered. bastages...(remember from "johnny dangerously"?) and jews have behaved extremely well (i'd rather be a muslim in israel than a jew in palestine) especially given their geographic isolation in a sea of islamic intolerance, but man, i wish they'd quit building on to those settlements. i suspect they view them as a long-term bargaining chip.

If I weren't in such a good mood, but I am, I'd ask whether Egypt persecutes the Coptic Christians as a human rights gesture.

edbyronadams,
agreed, re: susan's grading of the speech. i thought, given many muslims' hyper-senstivity to criticism (you know, it's all about "honor" and "insults" and so on), i thought obama's speech was fan-freakin-tastic. he criticized the u.s., israel and "islamic extremists". and he cherry-picked islamic scripture beautifully to find parts that tell muslims to be good.

i too, am skeptical that muslims, especially those "moderates" we keep hearing about, will take responsibility for islam's poor image and track record. those moderates who gave obama a standing ovation after his speech are the ones who've got to initiate a new islamic revolution (a good one, this time) from within islam. i'm skeptical, but allowing myself a bit of hope.

Correction to previous posting:

Should have written:
Why he turns back fleeing Sudanese or kills them if they don't make it to Israel.

I must be in a good mood. Otherwise, I would ask why the Palestinians refused the two-state solution in 2000, after having said it was what they wanted.

I would ask whether shooting little girls in the head at point-blank range signifies Palestinian respect for human rights. Ditto blowing up busloads of children. Ditto honor killings, corruption, returning fathers in body bags on the basis of this suspicion or that.

If I were not in such a good mood, I'd ask why 1,000,000 Iranian Jews are living in exile, why Egypt, which had 80,000 Jews now has fourteen (14), why Egypt denies its citizens of Palestinian ancestry an education, bars them from full citizenship, still practices female genital mutilation, honor killings. Why Mubarak and friends grow fat while Egyptians starve. Why he is grooming his son to take over. Why he turns back fleeing Sudanese or kills them if they don't make it to Egypt.

I'd take a stroll around the region...if I weren't in such a good mood.

walter-in-fallschurch,

"obama's speech was much more deferential to islam than i would have been, but that's why obama is a great politician. he criticised without insulting."

That is why Susan Jacoby's split grade is justified. I have my doubts on the long term efficacy of seducing the Muslim population with sweet talk, but it is worth a try.

KEVIV321:

I disagree with you that there is more intolerance among Abrahamic faiths than other religions.

If you are familiar with Hinduism, you know that they have a caste system in which all humans are born unequal until their death. The atrocities by upper caste Hindus on the untouchables are beyond belief.

All people have ETNOCENTRISM--the belief that our way of liofe is the best and others are bizzare, strange and unfit for human survival.

The Israelis do not want to give Human Rights to Palestinians because the Palestinians are considered to be sub-human. If they believed in Human Rights they wouldn't treat the Palestinian people the way they do.

No doubt, jiziya wouldn't be an acceptable thing from today's standards. But I understand non-Muslims in Andalusia paid jiziya. In return, they were exempt from military service and were given protection.

One more point: There is a big difference in theory and practice. Despite the fact that there are laws against committing crimes. Has crime been eliminated from any society?

I admire the secular constitution of the U.S. Does that mean religion, ethnicity, race, sectarianism do not play any role in our elections? Remember Sarah Palin?

Why were some people calling "Obama is a Muslim" during election. Some are still calling him a Muslim. If we are secular, how does it matter if he is a Muslim or not? Of course, he is a Christian, we all know that.

schaeffz,
;-)

Walter - we are on the same page.

schaeffz, you said,
"I would say that the previous US Administration acted largely out of ignorance, where I hope (pray) that Obama works out of enlightenment. So far I see evidence of this!"

i totally agree (except for the "pray" part - i'm stuck with just "hoping". ;-))

schaeffz,
perhaps adams was religious, but certainly not in the way "christian nation" christians would like to think. in a letter to jefferson adams said,

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by His own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

the "fictitious miracles" here are are the virgin birth of jesus and his resurrection. adams was religious in the sense that he thought the masses needed religion to behave, but his personal views were, uh, more secular.

I would point out that in India there is very dramatic inter-religious strife. Ignorance is at the core of intolerance, and ignorance is not reserved for those of us on this side of the globe. I would say that the previous US Administration acted largely out of ignorance, where I hope (pray) that Obama works out of enlightenment. So far I see evidence of this!

Susan Jacoby:

Interesting essay. Lotsa stuff! I disagree on several points, about which more later. Right now, I'm delighted to see you back on this blog. I was getting worried. I was going to write to the management. I was having anxiety attacks.

It was awful. But you're back with us, in virtuality, where (a) virtual you belongs. I am pleased, much! :

Your insistence that secularism is an American/European idea shows your ignorance of other cultures and religions.

Coming back to the topic at hand, it is probably true that there has historically been more intolerance among the three Abrahamic religions than otherwise. However, it does nobody any good if Obama were to highlight that.

John Adams was indeed a very religious man from a church-going perspective, where Jefferson was not church-going yet still a God-believer in his own unique way. These two, as well as most of the Founding Fathers, I dare say, did in privacy and in their own way offer prayers for their success. I say this as a Christian who does not flaunt it, uses "reason" in daily affairs, yet prays to God very frequently with thanks for my reason and freedom, and prays for instruction and enlightenment. Even the most devout atheist, I dare say, at times thinks privately, "I hope this works out", which is indeed a prayer as I define it.

edbyronadams, you said,
"The non Muslims still had to pay the Jizya"

well...given the moral exceptionalism of the koran/hadith (and therefore the "islamic world"), that non-muslims weren't automatically killed counts as "tolerance". it's an extremely low bar.

obama's speech was much more deferential to islam than i would have been, but that's why obama is a great politician. he criticised without insulting.

lrobby1, you said,
"I would assign the grade of "F" to Ms. Jacoby's article because she did not provide any evidence for the effect of secular thought on any country."

really now.... must susan explain to you how the american constitution is a SECULAR document - possibly the first example of a national constitution NOT to invoke ANY GODS as its source of authority?

must she remind you that the "religious freedom" clause of the first amendment is intended to protect people (theists and atheists) from persecution...by other religious people.

"secular thought" is what gave us the constitution. perhaps an explanation of the origins of the constitutional thought from john adams is in order here.

"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in ANY DEGREE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HEAVEN, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived MERELY BY THE USE OF REASON AND THE SENSES. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the NATURAL AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE ALONE, WITHOUT A PRETENCE OF MIRALCE OR MYSTERY, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” [emphasis mine]

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788.

it turns out adams was too charitable. we indeed do “pretend” our founders “had interviews with the gods,” and were “under the influence of heaven.”

mind you "secular" does not mean "anti-religious", it just means "not religious".

While I concur with Ms. Jacoby's grading system, her historical analysis is still too kind to the Muslims. The tolerance in al Andalusia is greatly exaggerated. The non Muslims still had to pay the Jizya and at times it was onerous. Pogroms still occurred during the Muslim occupation of Spain as well.

Not only the power to tax non Muslims but the unequal value between the penalties for taking a Muslim life or that of a non-Muslim are codified in the Koran. It is difficult to call for religious tolerance when Islam has such a foundation. It is similar situation for the call for women's rights.

Lastly, it was not the thinkers of the Enlightenment that provided us with the legacy of religious freedom but the sea of blood called the Thirty Years War and the Eighty Years War. That is what dissolved the categorical imperative for the believers in different brands of Christianity, not the writing of eggheads. It is questionable that the Muslim world can reach their own version of the Peace of Westphalia without adequate amounts of bloodshed to drive the point home that religious chauvinism is a bad idea.

I think Obama is limited by his audience here. There is no way to address the Muslim world without including religion in the message.

Simply because there is no bright line of religious/secular separatism to be found in the world of Islam - it's host cultures/societies are either largely theocratic or influenced to a significant degree by Islamic laws/beliefs - including Indonesia.

Attempting to meld Christianity and Islam together historically in a positive way may appear to be taking the (cynical) low road of political expediency, but frankly I don't see another way to get a constructive conversation started with the Muslim world.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be one to have unrealistic expectations based on this hoped-for emergence of a heretofore conspicuously absent congeniality between the modern secular/democratic world and a huge population of over 1 billion people still under the sway of a theology largely unchanged since the Middle Ages - not to say that Christianity has changed all that much either.

The fundamentalism associated with a literal belief in either the Quran or the Bible is without significant differences as to the mindset of the believer.

We do have protections against the tyranny of religion in the West - not so in the Muslim world. This is Obama's political reality.

Also, to Ms. Jacoby...my daily experience proves that the very, very BEST of religion shines thru the people I work with. That CORE of religious experience and belief exists in all people of "good faith". I live in a very real example of what religious freedom means. And if we look at USA history, we see this happening all along, in spite of fringe efforts to yank us into one religious mold or another. I take the most positive meaning of "secularism" to heart, not rejection of religion, but instead, interpersonal acceptance and respect, regardless of religious preference.

I wonder where LROBBY lives?
I live and work in Virginia. I work with colleagues of all stripes. Men and women; black, white, oriental; Jew, Sikh, Christian, Muslim, atheist; Republican, Libertarian, Democrat. I attend technical meetings where I see turban and yarmulka; cross necklaces and Star of David necklaces. I hear English spoken in many accents. I see cooperation, laughter, tecnical savvy, enjoyment of work, and companionship. We build communication satellites for companies based in countries all across the world, again of various political, racial, and religious stripes. Our product, providing the real possibility of international communication, in turn requires real interpersonal communication for business success.
I live daily amongst the success of USA's strong secularism.
So, where do you live LROBBY?

I admire Susan Jacoby. Her liberal ideology is a process that will take decades if not centuries. Mind sets do not change in a hurry. Even in America, liberalism is despised by a lot of people. I could not expect President Obama to give a lecture on liberalism in Cairo.

Liberals in the U.S. are taunted with the very term 'liberal' and epithets like "bleeding heart liberals". Read some of the blogs on the first page of this newspaper. I am sure you have an idea, Ms. Jacoby.

If I were giving Susan Jacoby's column a a grade solely for its objectivity and honesty, she would definitely get an "F"

Susan wrote:

"Obama should not have just talked happy talk about the "Holy Bible," the "Holy Koran," and the Talmud at Cairo University. He should also have noted the contribution that secular thought has made to all countries in which there is true freedom of religion."

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right of all Americans, including President Obama. It is a Constitutional guarantee of every American to worship whatever God or god he or she chooses.

Mr. Obama, like other Americans, also has a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. This means that he is free to honor the rich and diverse history of the 3 Abrahamic religions.

I would assign the grade of "F" to Ms. Jacoby's article because she did not provide any evidence for the effect of secular thought on any country.