Member Login
Who's Online
We have 34 guests onlineLatest Discussions
- Concept of Karma...
admin 29.7.2010 6:23 - Re:Idea of Beauty
abanerji 25.7.2010 7:10 - Re:Idea of Beauty
ppavalamani 14.7.2010 22:46 - Idea of Beauty
admin 13.7.2010 12:39 - The Incubation360 X Files
Caramir 29.6.2010 3:35
Latest Comments
Rational Thoughts Rational Thoughts Do we need God and Religion?
|
Do we need Religion and God?
God is the epitome of all good things. God is Nature. But Religion is manmade. It's various ways and rituals and traditions divide people, influence their thught process and get to decide the way of their life...both good and bad deeds. Religion is like sex. It should be practiced within four walls. It's a personal preference!
What could be possibly holy in any war? There may be many a good preachings in Islam. But..like a drop of poison spoils the whole lot of milk, this one unholy, evil, disastrous-to-humankind 'jihad' preaching is enough to question this Religion's need on earth!!
More from this author: Related Articles: Trackback(0)
Comments (13)
  written by umbrella, February 24, 2010
@Minakhi Prasad Misra
Thank you for ur input. First of all, this is not an essay. i wanted to register a common man's view on Religion and God. A well thought out essay would have diluted this purpose..diluted the depth of fear and insecurity of innocent public! 1. Every religion is based on this concept 'Good versus Evil'. The question is what is evil and what is not. If 'Jihad' is not mentioned in the context of religious intolerance and misinterpreted by a handful of Muslim fanatics as u say, how come they brainwash, manipulate lakhs..if not millions of Muslims with this convoluted misinterpretation continuously..to the extent of killing themselves and commit unheard of cruelty to mankind? Why the millions of devout Muslims never raise their voice against such atrocity against their religion? U say sometimes violence is inevitable. Yes..i agree. But Religion is not a common cause. Demons in Hindu scriptures are just fantasy. Let's ignore it since i don't see any modern day Hindu going on a killing spree with AK47! Regarding Kauravas, well..i personally think Pandavas were the most corruptive. it was a justified battle between heirs as it was an accepted one in that era! Hitler was known for his cruelty. The whole world was against him.. If ever we search for a holiness in war..I dare call it a hOly war! U say the very concept of Jihad cannot be challenged...yes i agree..but only to a devout Muslim ! A religious belief should be practiced within and among it's followers...and this Jihad is their belief! If this 'jihad' is not mentioned in the context of religious intolerance, they don't have any business to impose and practice it on non-muslims..right? Moreover moral resistance is the best way to achieve goals if the cause is justified and an acceptable, amicable form. Every religion talks abt this..except the repeatedly misinterpreted [?!!] Islam where blood baths and mass murders are the order of the day! 2. Regarding the positive point section, I gave Islam it's due credit for it's contribution. But their religious beliefs..well..that's y i said a drop of poison can spoil the whole lot of milk. U say a proper understanding of the concepts of Islam can help us evaluate the religion. Yes i agree, for that, a person either should belong to that religion or his curiosity should be triggered by somth in that religion. With Islam, though the curiosity of a common man is triggered at least to know abt this infamous 'jihad', the fear and disgust makes him avoid it like plague! who could blame him? 3. Establishing Good across the globe is a noble cause. But, Religious fanaticism and resulting madness is a very very sensitive issue. Criticism from within..especially abt Religion, people accept without much fuss. but from an outsider, they bristle, see it as a threat and wage war...moral or military..[and with Muslims, the obvious choice is military!]. Moreover..expecting a common man to understand and evaluate another religion's atrocities is not fair. A common man has his own battles to fight, to survive. He has no time for continuous tolerance and endless patience for unnecessary sufferings, the very threat to his livelihood and fear of death! Moreover, our secularists have done enough to understand and truly evaluate this worry some, troublesome religion. But, the outcome of that peace-keeping mission ? We become a soft target! That's y i insist, that all devout Muslims should consider this as a last resort and wage holy war 'jihad' against these people who is damaging and degrading the very image of Islam! It's their moral obligation! After all..it's their Religion. Instead of preaching us abt the goodness of Islam, they should show us the true meaning of Jihad through their actions. Let those fanatics taste their own medicine! If it's only a handful of fanatics who is committing such extreme cruelties [ as u say] , then its high time the rest of the Muslims act against them. We, who belong to other religions don't give a hoot whether Islam flourishes or dies !! All we, the common people longs for is peaceful co-existence in a secular society. Thank you once again for ur thought provoking input.
 written by Minakhi Prasad Misra, February 24, 2010
The stand that you have taken in your comment looks quite different from the one that is reflected from the "common man's view". The one in your comment is the one you truly believe in. The original script, however, portrays your intentions in quite a different light. The main script seemed at first sight as one designed to compare the various religions and demean one of them.
All I wanted to put forward in my previous comment is that you did not take the right approach at the problem. You did not try to concentrate on the main problem, rather made a about-the-bush approach to subtly aim at the bulls-eye. Your comment on the other hand, was precisely targeted and felt more like the common man's view because it did not go about evaluating the various pro's and cons of any religion, it simply put a voice to the fears and apprehensions boiling in their minds. The words had more emotion and in the end a true plea to those who can solve the problem most effectively. I rated the original script at 5 stars because somewhere, I felt that the script was a very restrained expression, which might come out properly when people read it thoroughly and make remarks. I believe that the script together with your latest comment deserve 5 stars now.!!! P.S...These three comments have more words now than the original script itself. Always amuses me !!!
 written by Santosh, February 25, 2010
Religion is not an institution with a founder and a set of laws!!! Jesus , Allah or Lord Krishna do not head any of the religion. Religion originated from people's groups who shared common beliefs. The enlightened amongst them packaged the moral science and propagated the same by preaching and influencing more people in the name of God, many with ulterior motives. Unscrupulous men used religion by misinterpreting the original values and using forceful terminology like jihad. Evil was skillfully veiled by the use of rhetoric and God.
All religion is sacred and divine, but some of the followers are diabolical and ambitious. I like your connotation Umbs!! Religion is like sex and should be practiced within the four walls!! well said!! many of our pujaris will certainly scorn at this. Regds
 written by Abhishek Chakrabarti, February 26, 2010
Hi there!
OK, I am going to cut to the chase here; so I apologise in advance if I come across as argumentative. First off, I found the absence of Judaism to be somewhat glaring in the above discussion. Let's not forget, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are ALL Abrahmic religions; all of them worship the same God- the God of Abraham. All three believe in the Old Testament; it's with the New Testament that the bone of contention lies between the three. Also, I found your discussion on Islam to be somewhat inconsistent with the tonal quality of the rest of your essay/report. It went from a mature/impartial evaluation of major religions to a "Let's Bash Islam" piece- not particularly mature, and certainly not impartial. Why would a Muslim who isn't a terrorist HAVE to reaffirm his/her condemnation of terrorism? Do we, as hindus/christians/sikhs/jews? Let's not forget, Christianity of today maybe very charitable; it wasn't a few centuries ago. Remember the Inquisition Times? The Salem Witch Trials? People were tortured until they confessed to crimes they did not committ and then were burned alive. One cannot look at the recent history of a religion and then straight label it to be violent. Religions change a lot over time. Again, the view of Hinduism being an organised religion is relatively recent. Hinduism was never an 'ism,'; it was a way of life, a belief system. You can't pinpoint a person or a group of people credited with historically founding Hinduism. Besides, the word "Hindu" is only a bastardised form of the word Sindhu. It was a word which meant the people who dwelt by the banks of the river Sindhu.
 written by idiott, February 27, 2010
Let me start with a cliche "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium for the masses."
This is my take on religion: 1. Hinduism: a.It is not a religion at all. as rightly pointed out by Abhisek it is a bastardised form of the word Sindhu. This referred to the religious practice of the people who lived on the banks of the river Sindhu(present day Indus).So please don't confuse the word Hinduism with a religion. b. This is a very flawed concept that "Dharma-karma-moksha" is the basic principle of the so called Hinduism. I say "so called" because I still hold the ground that Hinduism is not the religion. Those who say they are Hindus follow the religion Bramhinism in some form or other. In North India it is the Aryan form of Bramhinism and in south India, (especially in Tamil Nadu) it is the Dravidian form of Bramhinism. "Dharma-Karma-Mokhsa" etc are only one small strand of this religion. This has been immortalized by the epics like The Mahabharata which have null religious value. As we all agree Rigveda is the repository of ancient religion that prevailed in India. And Rigveda preaches monism. It does not speak about any of the religious practices that we associate with the religion called "HINDUISM". It says, "iyám vísṛṣṭiḥ yátaḥ ābabhūva / yádi vā dadhé yádi vā ná / yáḥ asya ádhyakṣaḥ paramé vyóman / sáḥ aṅgá veda yádi vā ná véda" Means: He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, / Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. From this hymn two strands of religious philosophy emerged the "Astik" and the "nastik". Those who unconditionally believed on the HE are the Astik and those who tried to find out the reason on the existence of "HE" are the nastiks. And our 6 school of philosophy are based on either one of the two or lie somewhere between the two(e.g Samkhya). What I mean to say this is the religion and what we today follow is the religious practices. Hinduism can at best be called a way of life not a religion. c. We say religion is good vs evil. Yes true but what is the good and what is evil. Evil is not something that roams around with an AK47 and you answer with it with Sukhoi bombardment. Evil is inside you. Good is inside you. So our scriptures has called "Brahmoshmi". I am the Lord and both good and bad is subsumed inside me. I have to conquer the evil inside me. We hear about "Aswamedha sacrifice". It does not mean sending a horse to different countries and ask the ruler of those places to accpet allegiance. (popularised by Ramayan tele serial). This means to kill the Ashwa prabriti inside us. Rajasuya sacrifice means after killing the Ashwa prabriti inside me I should christen myself with the quality of the Raja. Raja means Vishnu. Vishnu means not the God wielding some flying disc. Vishnu is derived from the word Vish. It is a verb and means enter. So that which enters becomes Vishnu. When I perform Rajasuya... i try to enter the knowledge inside me. And i become Vishnu. But our so called religious practitioner has completley changed the meanings of the word and made them some ritualistic idiocy. And today we confuse them to be a utterly confused religion called Hinduism. So good vs evil is not externalized but it is inside our mind. with ref to Minakshi's comment War is inevitable, I say yes it is inevitable but what form of war does he mean. Violence or non violence all are later development. War should be at the level of conscious. Not with good vs evil in the Iraq, or in Kurukstra. When I say "Brahmoshmi" the one whom I am trying to win over is also a "Brahma". They say, "Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate. Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate" How can i win over then? d. What I mean to say here, what we see today are not religion but various forms of religious practices, which rightly said by Umbrella, should be practiced within the four walls.
written by idiott, February 27, 2010
@minakshiprasad
After so much moral commentary on religion, now i give my view on the issue, do we need religion? Theories of religion makes religion inevitable. As said by Santosh, it builds a form of solidarity amongst us. Without solidarity our society will collapse and we definitely don't want it. But what kind of solidarity to we need today? Solidarity are of two types: "mechanical and organic". Today the material and moral density of the society has increased manifolds and hence mechanical solidarity has been a term in dictionary only. In today's word we dont need similarity of belief to identify ourselves with our group. Today, i don't require beards to identify myself to be a muslim. I can believe in the tenets of islam and become a muslim. I don't need to go to temple umpteen times to assert myself to be a follower of brahminism or Sanatan dharma. I don't need to abhor beef to worship lord Vishnu. So as the society changes the rituals ought to change. But sadly they have not changed.why? Change is society is never uniform. It is like a viscous liquid flowing. The velocity of change is not uniform at every layer of this liquid. when the change is not uniform, relative deprivation comes to play. For example, suppose the author and I belong to different religious sects and we were in school together when we were kids. after twenty years i found her to be more prosperous and well placed than I in the society. I develop a feeling of defeatism. i started to hate her. But no point could i serve by hating her so i tried to improve myself by some means or other. For her self improvement was inwardly, as she competed with herself to excel, but in my case it is outwardly, i competed with her and thereby overlooked my own fallacies. Unable to find any reason of my failure i try to reassert my self on the basis of primordial identities. I tried to see her as someone who does not belong to my spectrum. True she does not belong and i tend to say the reason is i being of different religion. I tend to color my failure on religious fervor. And i say due to people like her i am perpetually exploited. Now i convince myself to start war against her. This is not a mere euphemism, i found this operating in the case of Zinnah's assertion for Pakistan and more recently in the Taliban regime. So relative deprivation, as per me, is the root cause of religious fanaticism. We cannot ban a particular religious practice as it will be atrocity against free will. So what steps do we need to follow. Apart from development which is long term, the short term strategy by every statesman should be to follow absolute secularism, not the pseudo-secularism we follow in India. We say we are secular but still our great national leaders vouch for some idiotic ram mandir. Is it less evil than the so called Jihad? We need religion in its true form but we dont need religious practices.. and definitely we don't need GOds we don't need Ram, Rahim or Christ. When we move back to true religion we find similarity in all form of religion..true monism. But now question is how to renounce all religious practices and embrace the true form of religion???
 written by Domarp, February 28, 2010
@Umbrella: A very sound analysis of religion and glimpse of God too..I fully agree that religion is individual preference and choice and should not be mixed anything else...though not a theologist but I feel still the basics of every religion revolves around goodness following path of righteous..religion is important so is god since it acts as one's anchor and restrains people from doing ill deeds..Marxsists might term it as "opium of masses" but on a whole religion is more integrative not divisive as faith bring beliefs and hope..however in a diverse plural society it is serving a different meaning all together..only those things in religion should be espoused and embraced which helps to unite
written by umbrella, February 28, 2010
@Minakhi Prasad Misra
Thanks for ur feedback. With comments longer-than-the-original-post, now this truly has become an Essay..isnt it?
written by umbrella, February 28, 2010
@Santosh - Thanks for ur input.
Religion is sacred and divine. i agree. But the escalating number of unscrupulous men using it for all kinda cruelty against fellow humans is extremely worrying. High time, the world lose it's seudo-diplomacy and speak views in blunt manner regarding this issue. Some stern action always pays where all kind of diplomacy fails! wt say?..
written by umbrella, February 28, 2010
First of all, let's forget apologies..cz it spoils the very spirit of healthy debates!
Regarding Judaism, we cant deny it's complex relationship with Islam. New testament and it's related issues are an internal dispute, a war within those religions. How Religions affect our everyday life, what's the role Religions play in our life..and What role Religions 'should' play is the issue here. Yes..i bash Islam..i question it's need on this earth. but..Am i flinging false accusations? we both know it's all facts! Through all this bashing..i'm trying to find a solution for a peaceful existence. Muslims 'HAVE' to reaffirm their condemnation against Islamic terrorists. Dont u think these kind of acts sure will help in tone down the unnecessary hatred against Islam? Sure this will endear them to those who belong to other religions, will help in instilling trust in their minds. When a Hindu do some atrocity in the name of his Religion, we always see another peace loving, neutral group of Hindus voice their condemnation immediately. Do we see such incidents with Islam? They never fail to show their strong, ferocious united front in Ayothi issue! When 'Purdha' comes under attack, they all come out on streets without fail to register their protest. So..i ask u..what prevents them from voicing their protest against cruel acts done in the name of 'their' religion? Why they never show up on streets and hold big rallies against such atrocities?????? If it's fear that is stopping them, then i wd like to remind them that this is their moral obligation to their Religion ! If they r giving their support by being a silent spectator, then bashing is inevitable and the time has come to reevaluate the worthiness of such Religion! Religions change a lot over time..i agree. But..the brutality happened in the name of christianity and Hindu'ism'..all were in the long-forgotten eras! That's what evolution means! Evolution happens only if and when that concerned religious people start asking questions abt certain beliefs, preachings, accept criticism and try to reform. In Islam, there is no evolution so far. They still cling to their age old practices and beliefs..[however bad]. Without evaluation, there wont be any reformation and civilization. In this 21st century, other religions can boast abt their reformed presence...but can u say the same abt Islam? A civilized world, a civilized society dont accept such barbaric customs and beliefs! Thanks for ur input. I appreciate ur arguments.
written by umbrella, February 28, 2010
@ Idiot
Well..millions follow this Hindu 'ism'. so in a way it's a Religion. On saying that..i agree with the rest of ur comment. It throws light on certain things i had doubts on. Thanks for ur input.
written by umbrella, February 28, 2010
@ Domarp
I agree with u wholeheartedly. Religion maybe 'opium of masses'. But..it's the binding factor of masses. It creates masses! The need of the hour is evaluation from within and courage to act. Thanks for ur input.
Write comment
|
|||
| Last Updated on Saturday, 27 February 2010 00:05 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
1. The concept of Jihad in Islam is not an alien concept in Hinduism. Moreover, the fact that war has nothing 'holy' about it is a questionable statement. The 'war against evil' is considered the param dharma of everyone who believes in Good. This has been brought to light in all scriptures of Hinduism. The problem lies in the interpretation of 'holy war'. War can be fought without violence(as advocated by Gandhiji) but sometimes violence is inevitable(as was the case with all the demons in our Hindu Scriptures or with the corrupt Kauravas, or more recently the ambitious Mr. Hitler). I agree that today, many misguided Muslims have used Jihad as an excuse for terrorism, but the very concept of Jihad itself cannot be challenged. Any devout Muslim will tell you that Jihad is meant only as a last resort against Evil, to preserve Good. The fact that some people misinterpret and misrepresent the concept of Jihad does not call for a outright denial of the necessity of War.
It is funny that later on that the author, herself, calls for a war on Evil: "Yes ! it's time we take such uncompromising, brave decision to eradicate such evil." War is not just military confrontation. It refers to any moral resistance. This definition of war is consistent with every religion that I know of.
2. The "positive point" section for Islam is pretty lacking. Many important contribution of Islam have not been mentioned(their contribution to the fields of science cannot be overlooked). Moreover, no mention of any religious belief has been made, inconsistent with the format of this section for the other two religions. This not only biases the argument against Islam, it also does not help in understanding them. Only proper understanding of the concepts of Islam can help us truly evaluate the religion as a whole.
3. The author also asks, "if the good, peace loving Muslims are still out there in the world..why they never come out and condemn all the ill-doings happening in the name of Islath and it's damning 'Jihad'..?" It must be emphasized that one act of evil leaves a far deeper impression on the minds of people than a hundred acts of good. The reason is simple. Evil inspires fear and fear dominates over most emotions. To establish Good across the globe is a job that requires immense courage on the part of every individual. To do the opposite, all it takes is a handful of individuals capable of fanaticism.