When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.



... and if only we all practiced what Abraham Lincoln said, the world will bw a much better place to live in.

Karl Marx believed religion was OPIUM. With each passing day, I’ve began to realize that he is right. It is the foundation for criticisms. Religion divides. It divides people to believe in a set of morals that hinder harmony and togetherness. It creates classes and marginalizes people. It is the sole basis for war between countries and war within countries. In India, a secular nation, the fight for religious supremacy is never ending. We have oppressed classes and a range of capitalists constantly imposing their norms.

It creates alienation among people and sadly, religion SANCTIONS these alienations. It leads to a negation in the society.

Today, there are NO INDIAN PARTIES. There are only castes and groups gathered around individuals. These individuals have power to plunder the state and use the tool of power to indoctrinate the uneducated and the unemployed. Karl Marx was a religious man..

Karl Marx hated exploitation of labor by ruthless capitalists. He hated poverty, greed, property. He wrote, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. He says, “Man makes religion, religion does not make man. In other words, religion is the self- consciousness and self feeling of a man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.”

Religion however is spreading in under-developed countries. It is spreading to the extent of a wry fanaticism. It weakens the strength and the ability of the people to revolt against unjust orders. The more, poverty spreads the firmer religion holds people.

Karl Marx loved man. He believed in the ability of man. He believed that religion hinders the true growth process of a man to blend in a society. Many scholars call him names: he is an Atheist, an agnostic, a free thinker, the devils incarnate and an evil man. It is a paradox in life for a man to be evidentially, so good and yet is seen as evil because of his unbelief, they say.

I say, to these scholars,”He was a man who believed in the religion of MAN and he practiced HUMANITY.”

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everyone at 20 something believes in Marx. He is so right!

When you are older your lens through which you look at life changes!

Religion mkaybe a crutch as you age, BUT I do agree, man is using it as a lever today to hit out at others.

Trishma said...

Karl Marx wasnt a religious man, as stated in your blogpost. He was born into a Jewish Lutheran family but later adopted atheism.

Sakeena.B.M said...

adi... this aricle makes more sense than all those religious talks!! ;)

i agree with you, when u say.. religion is dividing the world... if it wasnt for these "so called Peace keeping " religions.... we would surely have had.. PEACE in this world!

@ trishma : Karl Max wasnt a religious man, in a way , that he WASNT following any particular religion. but.... he was a religious man.... because he had faith and belief is the goodness of man, humanity. And that was his religion.

Kirti Mohan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirti Mohan said...

Adi, Karl Marx’s opinion regarding religion is justified only to those who have firm control over their thoughts and actions. Karl Marx was a staunch supporter of the proletariat and believed in their dictatorship. He also believed in the non existence of the state. However, I am not completely in agreement with his philosophy. No two fingers are alike. We live in a very fragile society today which is extremely volatile. The laws which govern our society today are in fact products of religion itself. I hate religious fanatics but I am not completely against the concept of religion. Religion is in fact a social requirement which brings us humans together at worst times. I believe it to be mans best friend and worst enemy at the same time. Karl Marx wished for everyone to think like him. But do you think it is possible for people to think the way Karl Marx did? At the end of the day we have to realize that we are not God. Man is bound by both virtue and vice and I strongly opine that with such psychology it is practically impossible for us to walk in Marx’s path. Think about it. =) Your writing is really intuitive. Good job.

Adi said...

What is wrong in supporting the proletariat? After all, its the proletariat class which bears the brunt of capitalistic exploitations.

He believed in a workers state. To say that he believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat makes it sound like a rule of the elite proletariat which in turn will again lead to the rule of a select few. Marx believed in equal rights and equal distribution of wealth thereby shunning the growth of Capitalists.

You said the laws which govern the society today have products of religion. Let me ask you, should the laws for an effective governance be mixed with RELIGION?!!

How did the factors to govern a country get entwined with religion? It is because religion in itself separates and divides people. It creates classes and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to live in peace when you have different religions shouting aloud and preaching THEIR RIGHT WAY OF LIFE.

I do agree with you when you say it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow Marx because in today's saturated society you have to be categorized into a religion. You are slotted on birth and the institutions of society do not permit you to be an agnostic.

However, my article is on the fact that religion is bad but is inevitable. Agree?

Kirti Mohan said...

Marx believed in equal rights and equal distribution of wealth thereby shunning the growth of Capitalists.

As I mentioned earlier human psychology is variant from person to person. If we live in a society where there is equal distribution of wealth it is a near impossibility for us to survive. Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan bears true testimony to this understanding. If we lived in such a condition referred to by Hobbe’s the “State of Nature”; Man’s conflicting ideologies will sooner or later begin to dominate his mind. Man is responsible to his conscience he cannot survive in the extremes and he has to be placed in a position where he can feel the presence of the best and the worst. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a magnificent concept, agreed. However, its implication in the modern society is like living in a fool’s paradise.

Let me ask you, should the laws for an effective governance be mixed with RELIGION?!!

Laws for an effective government have to be mixed with Religion at least in the Indian scenario. Our laws are bound by the presence of various dynasties. India has always been ruled by various religions and has never in the past owed its allegiance to one single religion for an elongated period of time. Today, since, India is home to perhaps all the chief religions that exist in the world it is practically impossible for us to override religion while interpreting law. For instance, the concept of Polygamy which exists among the Muslims is legal, however, its implication in cases of Hindu’s has been seen to be illegal. This provision of law has been introduced after going through the Religious Preaching. Whatever said and done, man’s mind in India is consciously or subconsciously governed by his religion. If religious renditions were not introduced in law the maintenance of the society would have been impossible. And religion is not the only factor which creates classes. Religion or no religion, man is bound by egoism; classes would have existed either ways.

However, my article is on the fact that religion is bad but is inevitable. Agree?

I cannot completely agree that religion is bad. I do believe that being a religious fanatic is wrong however, I do not completely feel that the concept of religion as a whole is bad. As I mentioned, religion is man’s best friend and his own worst enemy at the same time. It is an essential to maintain social solidarity in the society and religion is a way of doing that. Religion may be the cause for the widespread of hatred but that again exists only among the fanatics. We need to understand that religion is not God; and that God is not religion. Religion is just an INEVITABLE sociological need which is just not being treated the way it has to be treated in today’s society.

Adi said...

Woah. Awesome. Nothing like a good discussion.

When i said equal distribution i did not mean literal equal distribution. That is obviously not possible. What i meant was the chasm between the rich and the poor can be eradicated with a workers state. Also true that its implication is probably impossible in today's time. I agree with you. Your right.

However, the laws of a nation NEED NOT/SHOULD NOT be mixed with religion. Allow me to elaborate ;

1. I agree with you when you say our laws are bound by various dynasties and their methods and therefore it is impossible to override religion while interpreting law.

2. I agree with you, It is IMPOSSIBLE to alienate people from religion and it will exist irrespective of who wants it to be changed.

Religion when infused with law it is bound to create conflicting views. Look at what the present day politicians are doing in the name of religion and garnering Muslim vote banks? We also have parties that have religious ideologies. To quote your very own example of polygamy, it is illegal for Hindus.

Lets take an example, what if a Muslim boy falls in love with a Hindu girl, gets married? He can always have another Muslim wife, because he is bound by LAW. Now, for the Hindu girl this is unacceptable.
In such a case, you have 2 conflicting views that are right according to their respective religions. The point is, RELIGION CREATES these anomalies barring the LOVE the boy and girl have for each other.

If not for religion both of them are going to be showered in connubial bliss.

What i am trying to say is that, when religion is mixed with laws conflicts are bound to arise simply because you have two classes who preach that their religious practices are right and the other is wrong. Devoid of religion, there are laws which are formulated in the interest of human kind under the governance of morality. This morality is formulated by GOD and religion does not preach morality. It preaches superiority by denouncing other religions.

How can you say man is bound by egoism? When a baby is born it is not born with inherent mental virtues. Society teaches the baby or rather indoctrinates the baby. Classes might arise in terms of state jingoism like Marathas, Tamilians etc... but these classes are not worse than religious one's. Religious classes KILL in the name of religion. It is the most discord and self made/man made pain for its own people.

NOTE : When i say this, i know this cannot be undone or changed. The laws are not going to vanish and faith in religion is not going to evaporate. It is a mere plea that this is not the way to lead life.

The answer to this quagmire lies in your last sentence. "(Religion)...is just not being treated the way it has to be treated in today’s society"

Do you think that will change? Do you think religion will ever be treated the way it is supposed to be?

If your answer is NO ; then my question is, do we need religion, where people are killing each other?

If your answer is YES ; then my question is, do you think the Taliban will not enforce the Sharia law and listen to true Islamists and not manipulate what is written in the Quran?

Kirti Mohan said...

First of all I am loving this discussion session. Haven’t had one in ages. Its making me think a lot and learn a lot from you at the same time too. We should have such discourses more often.

Forgive me for any grammatical errors you may find.

1) If not for religion both of them are going to be showered in connubial bliss.

I do not agree with you on this sentence. Religion is what gives couples marital bliss. I understand your concern about marriages that take places between two religions; but try understanding the situation you provided through a broader perspective. Islam provides for polygamy however Hinduism restricts it for whatever reason; however, if religion wasn’t existent there wouldn’t be a prudent reason to impose a law to govern various matrimonial atrocities like adultery and polygamy. Law shouldn’t be based on the foundation of religion; it should extract the goodness highlighted in every religion. The Indian law is completely not based on religion. In fact, it is hardly centered on the principals of religion except for the family law. The family laws in India are inescapably based on religion for the basic reason of maintaining tranquility in the society. Since we have pretty much come to terms with the fact that the Indian Society is mostly consistent of religious individuals it would be doomsday if we would not have constructed the family law provisions based on religion. If a Muslim dies, the Islam religion preaches of various methods his funeral must take place, it speaks of how the property ought to be divided; it speaks of various other important principles such as Mahr, Waqf etc so therefore, when we allow the Indian law relating to family affairs to be bound by religion we are in fact respecting that persons right to religion, his right to freedom, his right to privacy and most importantly his right to life; in short we are providing that person with an essentially important facet – his fundamental right.

I couldn’t agree more with your example regarding an inter religion marriage. To deal with that, the Government requires to formulate a law for marriage which is not based on religion. I completely concur with you when you speak of marriage and religion. Marriage is not a concept which has to be bound by religion. I feel marital laws should be alike for all religions at a time like this. I believe the Government is making an effort; their first step to legalize the registration of marriage is for one highly commendable. Besides, the introduction of new laws such as the Domestic Violence Act etc is making marriage an institution not bound by religion.


2) What i am trying to say is that, when religion is mixed with laws conflicts are bound to arise simply because you have two classes who preach that their religious practices are right and the other is wrong.

I fall in with your belief in this regard, religion mixed with law is indeed conflicting. However, certain laws based on religion in fact help the society to maintain peace and tranquility.

3) This morality is formulated by GOD and religion does not preach morality. It preaches superiority by denouncing other religions.

Religion preaches morality of the highest regard. Religious fanatics are the one who have misinterpreted the same. Recently, I read the Shiva Purana by Ramesh Menon. I suggest you read it sometime too. I was quite amused by the mentions Veda Vyasa has made. Sexuality is being spoken about so openly with absolutely no guilt in the mind of the author. Initially I was really apprehensive on reading the entire book. I could not picture the mentions made in that book in my mind. However, as I progressed I understood the situation of our Indian Society. The society has taken religion for granted and has wrongly interpreted most of our religious texts. God hasn’t really mentioned what is right and what is wrong; it is how we as human beings have taken it to be.

Kirti Mohan said...

Religion interpreted WRONGLY firmly restricts and labels as sin, everything that is pleasurable to the human body and mind. Hinduism has in no way restricted half the things we’ve been told to stay away from today. It truly preaches for us to realize the true goals of life and to enjoy life by savoring its true essence. No religion denounces another, it only speaks of principles which can give us the best results by the end of life. Religion has been interpreted by a few iniquitous minds and that is exactly the reason why there is so much of mayhem in today’s society regarding religion. I firmly believe that every human brain is competent enough to make individual choices and we should read what is authentic and should never let our minds be brainwashed by other’s thoughts and interpretations. We should interpret what we read in our own sweet way.

4) How can you say man is bound by egoism? When a baby is born it is not born with inherent mental virtues. Society teaches the baby or rather indoctrinates the baby. Classes might arise in terms of state jingoism like Marathas, Tamilians etc... but these classes are not worse than religious one's. Religious classes KILL in the name of religion. It is the most discord and self made/man made pain for its own people.

You are right about the baby. Yet, the baby has no option but to grow in a society filled with egoist minds. Society is indeed egoistic and that is what ruins even the mind of a baby born with paramount innocence. But, can we avoid the baby’s growth in a society. All of us are truly in love with our egos. We will never let anyone treat us below what dignity we have established for ourselves. Society gives it to us, we have to accept it the way it comes.

Religious classes do not kill people. Religious fanatics do. In fact if we were to believe that religious classes kill people we would have found it impossible to subsist in today’s world. Religion keeps man apart and at the same time it also keeps people together. In my opinion, religion fanatics need to be filtered out of the society. We need to come up with ways through which we can reform the society. Preaching that religion is not a requirement will not take us anywhere. Religion is a requirement; what we need to do is teach people to live in peace. The true essence of every religion requires to be imparted among the people. The superiority of God and the Inferiority of man needs to be expressly implied. The equality of every man needs to be established. Living harmoniously with religion should be the ultimate goal of mankind. Shunning religion all together is not suggestible for reasons I mentioned earlier.


<5) Do you think that will change? Do you think religion will ever be treated the way it is supposed to be?



If your answer is YES ; then my question is, do you think the Taliban will not enforce the Sharia law and listen to true Islamists and not manipulate what is written in the Quran?

My answer is yes! We all live in a world which is dynamic. The Taliban is what it is today, because we have given it the freedom to exploit innocent minds. The Taliban has had a lot to lose before it reached the point where it is today. It has created fear, turmoil, carnage and has itself lost so much of its so called “Jihadis”. If tomorrow, few like minded people come forward and think of a change it will happen. The question is not if religion will ever be treated the way it is supposed to be. The question is will fear ever take the place of hope and faith and bring the change that is meant to be.

Vikram Bondal said...

Sensible Article,Comes across as a breath of fresh air...And i like Kirti's points as well..

Contributing my 2 cents..Religion in current times has been subjected to every possible form of distortion. In fact,I'd like to say that every religion has gone through a very long game of Chinese whispers. It is sad because the ultimate message of every religion is peaceful co-existence. And considering the fact that we live in civilized times, It's surprising that people aren't very open-minded when it comes to religion. I guess, the human mind is in need of more evolution.

Nishali chand said...

This is one discourse that does not make me question...

Adi said...

“If religion wasn’t existent there wouldn’t be a prudent reason to impose a law to govern various matrimonial atrocities like adultery and polygamy”
I do not agree with this sentence because adultery is an issue of morality and morally adultery is wrong. Religion encourages polygamy but GOD (morality) does not. Agree?

“Law shouldn’t be based on the foundation of religion; it should extract the goodness highlighted in every religion”

Politicians make laws. How can you expect this to happen when different parties are vying for electoral posts and the chances of victory are based on the religion they support in order to gain votes?

If not for religion, the property of a dead person will be shared amongst the family and this is MORAL.

“Religion interpreted WRONGLY firmly restricts and labels as sin, everything that is pleasurable…………..
………..We should interpret what we read in our own sweet way.”

I think this paragraph is an awesome one. One of the things that I keep as a basis for this discussion is ‘existential relevance’. Your para very beautifully stated that NO religion fights for supremacy or denounces the other. ABSOLUTELY TRUE. No religion says that they are superior or better.
But, lets look at this more carefully ;

Who runs religion of today? The people. Not few intellectual scholars who can make a clear cut point of view. The world by large does not comprise of elite scholars and rational thinking men. We have mobs, hooligans waiting to pounce at the drop of a hat. In such a world i.e. the present day world with so many religions each one of them is going to fight for its existence and continued survival. If not, then why do we have PREACHERS? Channels? Sessions? The Taliban wants Every person to be a Muslim.

WE ARE AT THE HELM OF ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE. We are at a war with religions fighting for supremacy. Does religion in itself WANT people to do this?
NO.
People will do it! No matter what you tell them. Now, can this mayhem be curbed? Impossible. It is a democracy (ha ha) we have the right to voice our opinions and have the right to proclaim superiority, have a right to preach our religion. Religion today’s amounts to most deaths.
Terrorism is a religious struggle albeit a very bad and unnecessary one.

In reference with the baby, again I point out; if not for religion then the society does not create these divisions. The baby is not thought religious view points. The baby is taught moral view points and society will teach the baby these morals PROVIDED it is free from religion.

“Religious classes do not kill people. Religious fanatics do.”
You are bound to have religious fanatics in a struggle for power which each religion advocates. Also, let me quote an example of my own religion where the Brahmans committed atrocious crimes on Sudras. Things that I am ashamed to say. Weren’t these people of the same religion? Inter religious conflicts itself is a huge problem, picture intra religious one’s as well!! Either ways religion kills whether it is fanatics or classes.

Imagine a world without religion? There won’t be a need for deaths in the name of religion. Principles of life will be governed by morality.
“The true essence of every religion requires to be imparted among the people. The superiority of God and the Inferiority of man needs to be expressly implied.”
The reason why people are called religious ‘FANATICS’ is because they are incapable of making a rational decision. Fanatics will NOT accept and understand. IT is impossible to live in harmony with the existence of these FANATICS and these fanatics are omnipresent. Their existence is inevitable and they cannot be shunned. People take up causes like these due to unemployment and discrimination which goes on to reiterate my point of a workers state as envisaged by Karl Marx.

Are you saying that God created morality via religion and people misused it?

Adi said...

@ Vikram : Welcome to my blog. Considering people are manipulating religion, will it not be better if the existence of religion ceases to exist? I know its impossible, but its a thought. What do you think?


@ Nishali : I don't follow you. Elaborate please.

Kirti Mohan said...

“Politicians make laws. How can you expect this to happen when different parties are vying for electoral posts and the chances of victory are based on the religion they support in order to gain votes?”

I must say that I disagree with what is stated above. Constitutionally speaking laws can be formulated by the Government only through the participation of all three organs the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary respectively. In India, when a law has been formulated by the Executive, the Judiciary has been bestowed with the power of Judicial Review and the Doctrine of Severability, using which it can completely disallow the law from being enforced. Besides, in India, although I understand that the Government is corrupt in most other ways; while laws are being framed, there is imminent care being taken towards it being a public benefactor. The laws made in India are put through a very accurate screening process before it has been adopted. I understand that politicians make laws but, for a law to be made enforceable, the house needs to come to a consensus. And again, it is sent to the Upper House for review. Therefore, any law that has been passed isn’t essentially based on religion. Although, I wouldn’t deny the fact that certain laws are indeed religion biased ones.

”If not for religion, the property of a dead person will be shared amongst the family and this is MORAL.”

Again, I must say that I disagree with your opinion. As I mentioned earlier man isn’t completely a social amiable being. Since we have the law which pertains to ones own religion regarding property, the ones involved in such a dispute are bound to accept what the law orders him to do. Now just imagine, if law regarding property were based on anything but religion, we would have to enforce a law, which a certain person wouldn’t perhaps accept knowing that his religious law provides him with another option. In such an instance we would literally have to force the person down to accepting something which is against his wishes. That again is being dictatorial. The family law which has completely been based on religion has been very efficient when it comes to dealing with the diverse situation here in India. The situation here is so volatile that if we were to have a mono law to deal with people coming from all backgrounds it would have led to anarchy. And the world is filled with way too much of repugnance to be worried about ones morals. Religion can be easily enforced upon people. Call it gullibility or lack of knowledge, people would do anything to impress their god. But when the word God through the intercession of religion has been made void, no one would think about their morals and their liability to their conscience.

“Who runs religion of today? The people. Not few intellectual scholars who can make a clear cut point of view. The world by large does not comprise of elite scholars and rational thinking men. We have mobs, hooligans waiting to pounce at the drop of a hat. In such a world i.e. the present day world with so many religions each one of them is going to fight for its existence and continued survival. If not, then why do we have PREACHERS? Channels? Sessions? The Taliban wants Every person to be a Muslim.”

Kirti Mohan said...

I couldn’t agree more with you on this context. The world is run by irrationals who do not weigh the pros and cons of their acts. That is precisely why we need religion. As I mentioned earlier, Karl Marx’s ideology doesn’t have a universal appeal. It requires someone with an intellect to understand and someone with a lot of will power and control to implement the same. The same applies to the non-existence of religion. Man is in a phase where he is transforming from being a cannibal into a civilized individual. Although the world has grown dynamically, human beings haven’t yet evolved. The point here is that we need to achieve a point where we are solely controlled by our own conscience and most importantly a conscience which only knows to think rationally. The world of course lacks individuals who have the power of thinking for positive outputs. Hence, religion is a necessity to control mankind. I understand that the Taliban is growing at an exceptionally sensational way, however, we are the ones making the Taliban what it is today, and the Taliban is not what makes us. The world lacks great leaders and visionaries. Religion is just a lame excuse to shy away the incompetence of our world leaders. The Taliban is not something that became what it is through one night. It has grown right under our noses and we have done nothing to control it. If something revolutionary, as big as the Taliban can be created then why can’t the most knowledgeable, rational and competent persons around the world come together and think of methods to counter the same? We are digging our own graves and laughing at our own foolishness. The world is failing to reckon its power. People are being docile even before they can try to achieve something. Countering the Taliban is really difficult, I understand, however it is not impossible. World leaders need to come together and think of ways to counter this vehemence the Taliban is outpouring on us.

“In reference with the baby, again I point out; if not for religion then the society does not create these divisions. The baby is not thought religious view points. The baby is taught moral view points and society will teach the baby these morals PROVIDED it is free from religion.” – AGREED.

”You are bound to have religious fanatics in a struggle for power which each religion advocates. Also, let me quote an example of my own religion where the Brahmans committed atrocious crimes on Sudras. Things that I am ashamed to say. Weren’t these people of the same religion? Inter religious conflicts itself is a huge problem, picture intra religious one’s as well!! Either ways religion kills whether it is fanatics or classes.”

I agree with your view point in this regard. It is true that intra religious conflicts take place. For this, the Government needs to formulate strict laws to protect the rights of individuals from their own religions. No doctrine or no holy book preaches such inequality. I strongly feel that intra religious conflicts need to be countered and dealt with most effectively.


“Imagine a world without religion? There won’t be a need for deaths in the name of religion. Principles of life will be governed by morality.”

Kirti Mohan said...

So what if deaths weren’t taking place in the name of religion? It would still continue to take place in another form. Man is filled with all those seven sins elicited in the Bible. No man is a saint, everyone has their own sets of goals and aims to achieve. We are “imagining” a world without religion; none of us have ever lived in such a world. Imagining is one thing and actually surviving in one is another. Man is governed by his faith and it only his faith that can strictly control him. We do have unreligious people who exist in today’s society, does them being atheist make them any different from the ones who are religious? All of us are bound by the laws of nature and religion controls us at points when we are on the verge of losing our trace. A world sans religion wouldn’t really be a haven for all peace lovers.


“The reason why people are called religious ‘FANATICS’ is because they are incapable of making a rational decision. Fanatics will NOT accept and understand. IT is impossible to live in harmony with the existence of these FANATICS and these fanatics are omnipresent. Their existence is inevitable and they cannot be shunned. People take up causes like these due to unemployment and discrimination which goes on to reiterate my point of a workers state as envisaged by Karl Marx.” – TOTALLY AGREED.

Are you saying that God created morality via religion and people misused it?

Yes indeed. Religion was a medium through which man could be given an understanding of the principled and ethical way one could live in the world. Because of all the follies various people have committed while interpreting the same, we have reached a point where religion seems to be more of a conflict and less amity and serenity.

Kirti Mohan said...

thanks vik.. :)

Nishali chand said...

@adi i have always questioned religion, the existence of god, and the choice of following a religion. Here your discussions vik, kirti, and yours kinda elaborate on the answers to all my questions. Like vik said, religion is jus lik a case of chinese whispers totally misinterpreted. And also the fact that in the olden times when two conflicting laws of muslim and hindu religion brought abt confusion be it in trade or society in general man explored and questioned and that has led to evolution of the diversity of religions that we find. Religion therefore is jus an identity to a person, a medium in the society.

Adi said...

Each bill has to be passed through the politicians in both the houses before being signed by the president. If the bill does not get a majority in any of the houses it will be stalled and will not be law. Now, let’s assume that these bills do undergo a lot of scrutiny. Who are the people who scrutinize these bills? If the party command has a belief the members of the party have to be in align with what the party preaches. Any deviations will result in a catastrophe as seen in the Jaswanth Singh fiasco. Now, the BJP will OBVIOUSLY support pro Hindu policies irrespective of the oppressed classes. Getting a majority vote is a mere matter of time and money. Even if these bills are passed they are NOT upto the mark. A good example will be the SEZ Act which has nothing for labour exploitation by companies and labour laws etc…
Therefore, it is not possible to say that the politicians pass the laws with the best of interests. When it comes to religion, we are ALL very particular and very strong minded. That is precisely why religion plays an important, the most decisive factor in the elections.

“Now just imagine, if law regarding property were based on anything but religion, we would have to enforce a law, which a certain person wouldn’t perhaps accept knowing that HIS RELIGIOUS LAW PROVIDES HIM WITH ANOTHER OPTION”

I stated ”IF NOT FOR RELIGION, the property of a dead person will be shared amongst the family and this is MORAL”. If there is no religion, morally the money has to be divided amongst ALL the children in the family. On the other hand for the Hindu law the money has to go to the eldest son. Not the middle one or the daughter. IS this not unfair considering that the daughter is the one who will not be able to earn as much money when compared to the male? Altogether, if there was no religion there is no NEED for a law as the money will be equally distributed amongst the siblings in the family.

“Call it gullibility or lack of knowledge, people would do anything to impress their god”

This is precisely what is happening in today’s society. To impress their God/religion they feel the need to preach and coerce others to convert into their religion.
Kirti, its not just Taliban, the Al Qaeda, the Ecumenical Liberation Army or a million other fanatical groups. You cannot wipe out these groups or eradicate them. It is just not humanely possible and even if you do it they are going to rise again. When a person does not get what he wants and is humiliated he will bounce back and he will bounce back STRONG. The least you can do is contain them and reform them via a gradual and tedious process. Because, if you kill them their sons will want to take revenge and this cycle will never end. But that is not the point. The reason why these groups exist today and the reason why they are fighting????

RELIGION.

If there were no religion these groups will cease to exist.
“So what if deaths weren’t taking place in the name of religion? It would still continue to take place in another form”

The point is religious deaths and today most terrorist organizations are killing on the name of religion. If there were no religion these HUGE number of deaths will NOT occur.

Adi said...

Please note that my entire argument is based on ‘imagining’ if there was no religion. I stated clearly in my previous comments that though I know that this is NEVER possible I am arguing for the point that Religion is bad, religion oppresses, religion divides, man can live without religion.
Your answer to my last question, ‘’Are you saying that God created morality via religion and people misused it?’’ holds the key to understanding this debate.
1. If religion preaches morality, then we wouldn’t have deaths because of religion.
2. People have misused/are misusing/will continue to misuse religion. NOBODY can change that.
3. If you agree with point 2 then you also agree with me that religion is the basis for conflicts.
4. If you agree with point 3 then RELIGION IS OPIUM AND MUST BE DETESTED.
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. I have learnt so much! Keep it coming.

Kirti Mohan said...

“Now, the BJP will OBVIOUSLY support pro Hindu policies irrespective of the oppressed classes. Getting a majority vote is a mere matter of time and money. Even if these bills are passed they are NOT upto the mark………That is precisely why religion plays an important, the most decisive factor in the elections.”

I must say Adi, that I strongly disagree with your allegation against the BJP. Without prejudice let me mention to you that through my observation the BJP has been the only party in India which has never been given an opportunity to project itself in a manner which is not communally linked. Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been doubtlessly one of the finest statesmen India has ever seen and at the time of his leadership India did grow. From introducing Food Security to the Sarva Shisksha Abhayan, BJP left no stone unturned at the time of its ruling. In fact, the entire concept of climate change and preservation of the Earth was introduced by the BJP government. When conversion was questioned BJP introduced a mechanism through which people of different faiths could come together under one roof and have various discourses. The groups which support the BJP like the Kar Sevaks from various groups like the Bajarang Dal and the like are the ones who have ruined the entire underpinning BJP made for itself in India’s political scenario. I am not denying that BJP has been severely wrong while dealing with issues related to the Babri Masjid; neither am I propagating the party. Its just that I do not believe that the party completely is in favour of Religion based politics. If it were such, the BJP would have never had an opportunity to represent the nation with a majority at the Lok Sabha. I agree, religion does play a very important role in elections. When laws are being passed in the parliament it is a very stringent procedure. The constitution does not permit for the framing of laws without the application of thought.

“Now just imagine, if law regarding property were based on anything but religion, we would have to enforce a law, which a certain person wouldn’t perhaps accept knowing that HIS RELIGIOUS LAW PROVIDES HIM WITH ANOTHER OPTION”

I completely agree with you on this point. But my argument is that man is not a moral being. Religion is what makes man the moral person he is. Religion is based on morality however morality is not based on religion. Man being bound by the religion he belongs to at least makes an attempt at being moral. If religion weren’t existent man’s morality also would have been hardly visible.

“On the other hand for the Hindu law the money has to go to the eldest son. Not the middle one or the daughter. IS this not unfair considering that the daughter is the one who will not be able to earn as much money when compared to the male? Altogether, if there was no religion there is no NEED for a law as the money will be equally distributed amongst the siblings in the family.”

No, this is not true. The Hindu Succession Act is perhaps the most well framed law relating to property where a woman is placed at par with a man while property settlements are being made. A woman is given as much as importance as a man receives and is given an equal due.

Kirti Mohan said...

In fact, the Hindu Succession Act also goes out to add that when a person passes away intestate, his property shall be divided among all his dependents equally without any prejudice made on the basis of age or gender. This is a wonderful provision of law has been made available since 1956. This brings me to my next assertion: The problem we face today lies not in the law but in the provision of legal awareness and legal aid. We strictly follow a Latin maxim in law, “ Ignorantia Facti Excusat; Ignorantia Juris Non-Excusat ” which basically means that although of fact may be excused; ignorance of law can never be excused. The problem in India is that, law isn’t been given the importance it truly deserves. People are unaware and the government has not budged an inch to help publicize the basic principles of law. It should be the Governments duty to broadcast law and its fruits.

“The least you can do is contain them and reform them via a gradual and tedious process. Because, if you kill them their sons will want to take revenge and this cycle will never end. But that is not the point. The reason why these groups exist today and the reason why they are fighting????”

I agree with you here. That’s why I mentioned earlier that its high time leaders of our world came together and found means to resolve these conflicts. I also know that if world leaders do come together, anarchy will certainly prevail, blood will surely be lost. But then again, revolution is all about achieving a futuristic aim right. There is nothing that can be gained without losing anything.

“The point is religious deaths and today most terrorist organizations are killing on the name of religion. If there were no religion these HUGE number of deaths will NOT occur.”

To understand Taliban’s current presence we also need to understand the reason that drove the Taliban to where it is today. It arose in an Islamic nation to protect the citizens from the persecution and distress being caused by the Mujahideen Warlords. Taliban was a fight between one Muslim and another. And to add to it, America’s “stupid” intervention through the CIA caused great turmoil and havoc. Every inch of Taliban’s history has been a game of geopolitics played between the United States and Afghanistan. And in my belief and understanding it is the betrayal of the United States which led to Taliban completely giving up on modernism and moving towards the upholding of traditional Islamic philosophy. Now, the reason I iterated this entire origination philosophy is to just make ourselves come to terms with the fact that Religion IS NOT the only cause for terrorist organizations. IT IS A LAME EXCUSE ADOPTED BY COUNTIRES when they have completely failed to hold on to their geopolitics. RELIGION IS THE LAST RESORT; the black sheep everyone turn to when they need to blame someone or something for their anger and frustration. The Taliban ideology has never been consistent and has always been subjected to change. Initially it was an organization consistent of “Good Muslims” and today it is an organization consistent of “Radical Fundamentalists”.

I’m sorry but I do not agree with any of your four points. Religion as I mentioned earlier is a sociological unit which cannot be overseen. There is nothing under this wide sky which is pure and unsullied. Everything has its own set of flaws.

Kirti Mohan said...

Throughout this wonderful debate we have had we have weighed all pros and cons of religion. But again, we are talking about practicality. About how we can bring about a change in the modern thought. Shunning religion completely is impossible and I would never suggest it. However, as I mentioned earlier people need to be reformed and need to be given an understanding of what religion truly is and what we have to learn from it. I feel that our Country is slowly moving towards achieving secularism. You may find this statement very funny but that is what I feel. Lets take the Mangalore Church Attacks for better understanding. The church was attacked by a set of religious fanatics; however their act was opposed by at least half of the city. My family being Hindu’s made it a point to be present at Milagres along with our other Hindu friends expressing our disregard. Education and the Youth are bringing that change in our society. We all need to work together on spreading universal oneness and bringing the change we are looking for in the world. All this might sound a little too hard to achieve, but it’s at least easier than eradicating religion completely. =)

Good Night.. =)

Adi said...

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a visionary and probably THE BEST Prime minister India will ever have. Your talking about the BJP during his reign. I am talking about the present day BJP governed by a religiously eccentric Advani. My uncle is a journalist and he has met Advani on many am occasion and spoken to him. Advani is a staunch Hinduite and a person who would do ANYTHING for the Hindu righ, as seen in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Take nothing away from BJP, they are a fine party and did womderful things for India. But, let us loot at the human rights aspect and what issues like the Babri Masjid have done all because of religion?

To win the vote you have to win the people. In India the majority are illiterate. To garner the majority of this illiterate you have to support their religion. The moment each party is forced to do that the opposition is neglected and this differentiation between two groups will arise and thrive hampering harmony in a society. It has happened. It is happening and will continue to happen. Whereas. Keeping religion away it is a near impossibility for such petty fights to occur.

[[“Now just imagine, if law regarding property were based on anything but religion, we would have to enforce a law, which a certain person wouldn’t perhaps accept knowing that HIS RELIGIOUS LAW PROVIDES HIM WITH ANOTHER OPTION”
I completely agree with you on this point]]

I never made the above point. You did! I did not agree with the words made in capital and have justified it in my previous comments.

“…But my argument is that man is not a moral being…”

You agreed with me about the baby. Similarly, a man is not born immorally. Society is what makes him immoral. This immorality is planted by external factors like the society. How is the society influenced? By religion and its stupefying practices. When a baby is born with paramount innocence as quoted by you, where does the question of immorality seep in? Think about it? It has to be by whom the baby is coming into contact like fanatics, murderers, rapists etc…

Taliban’s formation is history. What is pertinent is the tool of Islam they are using to propagate their agenda. More on it for another day. But you did say that world leaders must come together and solve the issue and their incompetence is being blamed on religion and it’s a lame way etc…

Well, the reason why these leaders CANNOT come together is because of religion my friend. It is ONLY because of religion. These leaders are competent people. They are wily enough to win the elections and defraud their governments which obviously means that they have potential. So, why can’t they join hands and solve the problems to live in PEACE? Why not? Do you think ever leader wants to live under fear for his life that he may be killed by some terrorist organization? The simple reason is they wan’t to remain in power and to remain in power you have to win the trust of the people and to win the trust of these gullible people you have to support their religious fundamentals. Do you think Ahmedinijad, Hamid Karzai (sorry for the spellings) and other leaders will join Obama and Singh to fight these Islamic extremists? NO WAY. If they do so, they will PERISH and so will their FAMILIES. N I don’t just say this as a random assumption. It has happened before. As a matter of fact, I will write another post only on this to re-enforce my point. I will give you statistics about how religion is more important for people than their nationalism. It is appalling! Your pride for the nation is a big fat ZERO when compared to your religion. That is how the select ruling elites have portrayed religion as. They have constantly manipulated people into believing that religion is a man’s PRIDE, DESTINY, FATE, EGO, THE VERY REASON FOR HIS EXISTENCE!! How? How? How can you achieve harmony when there are so many factions? Lets look at the fights around the world today. India, Pakistan = Religion. Israel, Palestine = Religion. And the list will NEVER end. IT is the sole cause and the basis for FIGHTS.

Adi said...

Read this very carefully: I agree with you that religion was formulated for PEACE but not only have the people manipulated it; religion itself is prone to such manipulation. When you have two opposite forces of thought colliding with different view points on an issue, friction will occur and this friction will evolve into a pogrom. You can’t do anything about it.

I have said this before and i will say it again. In terms of practicality religion can NEVER be eliminated. My whole argument is construed on the fact that religion is bad and it is alienating people. It does not respect diversity and it is an OPIUM. The path to the right way/ harmony in a society is only through education and awareness with the existence of religion. I agree.

But, just like we know for sure that social networking will never die we still debate on the ill effects of it and we still say that it is bad. Nevertheless, we are assured of its continued existence. Similarly, i feel religion is bad though i know that nothing can be done about it. What i want to debate on is not the manner in which we can progress to make religion good. Religion in itself is a menacing thing and if not, IF NOT for religion... A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IN.

Kirti Mohan said...

“Read this very carefully: I agree with you that religion was formulated for PEACE but not only have ……… can’t do anything about it.”
I am being strongly drawn towards mentioning Mark Twain’s quote at this point. He was of the opinion that in religion like politics, people’s minds are in most cases influenced by second hand theories. No one wants to venture into understanding it all by themselves. What you have mentioned above is precisely what I have been trying to express right from the beginning. Religion is a concept which is indeed prone to manipulation. Its existence is inevitable. As you were mentioning that religion should itself be eradicated I chose to pose a different view. I believe in practicality and hence feel that the world is in need of reformation. People need to be taught that fundamentalism is one thing and idealism another. If we can imagine people to be moral and make righteous decisions somewhere down in the future why not give their give conscience a true test by teaching them universal humanitarianism? Religious friction occurs because of a few narrow minded individuals who have been bestowed upon with another opportunity to brainwash the minds of others and lead them into their path of understanding. We as human beings need to understand the need of the hour. All religions in the world need to be put at par and a concept like universal humanism needs to be highlighted and brought forward. It might sound difficult but I firmly believe that it is not impossible.

“Religion in itself is a menacing thing and if not, IF NOT for religion... A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IN.”
In my opinion, religion is what brought man together and it is religion which is bringing them apart. I agree, religion is indeed menacing. But in a world today where there so many atrocities that take place through various mala fide ways including corruption, hatred, envy, vanity and the like religion hardly plays a role. What I am trying to say is; religion is not the only thing which is affecting the world at large, religion is being put to blame unnecessarily. Perhaps, the world should indeed be put through a situation without the presence of religion, to understand its very worth. I was once in a situation wherein I myself questioned the worth of religion, that is when I came across a beautiful sentence spoken by none other than swami Vivekananda himself. He Says, “But greater than the present deep dismal night, no pall of darkness had ever before enveloped this holy land of ours. And compared with the depth of this fall, all previous falls appear like little hoof-marks” When religion has been wiped out of Earth’s crust we will face more of the deep dismal nights as mentioned by him. Man is too wicked a creature to survive without a supportive and accommodating institution like religion. THIS IS A VERY FIRM AND DETERMINED BELIEF I HAVE.

Adi said...

Hmmm... 2 different views here. I wonder what others think.

Kirti Mohan said...

Just one last quote to end this wonderful debate and discussion we had:

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs your money. Yes! Religion is truly the most perplexing gift God has given us.

- GEORGE CARLIN =) =)

The information I received through this is truly endearing, and I really felt rather elated through out this discourse. We should have more of this often. All the best Adi, you have am extremely bright and inviting future ahead.

Adi said...

I have heard the same lines in a documentary titled Zeitgeist. You must watch it. A real eye opener.

Great discussion. Will put up a post shortly for more debate, till then you can read the soft piece on women. Not much to debate there though. ha ha!

looking forward to meeting you in person sometime :D

Achala said...

It was really refreshing to read an intellectual discussion where two people with opposing viewpoints were respectfully agreeing to disagree. And on such a tricky topic too.. All those people on tv 'discussion' panels can learn a lot from you both. :)
Keep up the good work.