Friday, June 16, 2006
Secular is far better than Religious values --isn't it ?
After all -all religions do is create wars. NO as Ghandi said - Men create wars
One of the greatest paradoxes of the new milleneum is the Failuer of most antireligiuos elements in the West to take their own tutors seriously.
Modern mind Science supports the idea and importance of all people having "a religion" Its good for you to have one , maybe even necessary! -
Shock horror you say, just don't call it that, like the ageing reactionaries in the West do .Boxing into thin air !
The box is not to be rejected but assimulated
People need a world view to live.Sure they use a world vew to kill too , but take the whole idea seriously or all the West will do is find excuses to DO nothing and DO nothing positive to resist WV that we disagree with .
DENIAL of this reality turns attention away from theeal issue in politial affairs yes religion is critical and if you need a new word for it try World view .
American theologian William Cavanaugh at Melbourne University this month, and I largely follow his argument.
This myth plays a valuable role for secularists. It helps them marginalise Christians and demonise Muslims, and creates a blind spot about violence by the West. It confirms an "us" (the rational, peace-making, secular West) against a "them" (violent fanatics in the Muslim world). To quote Cavanaugh: " Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peace-making and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."
Most religious believers have bought this myth, too. They try to fight it by two arguments. First, they say that violence in the name of religion is really usually about politics or economics. Second, they claim that people who perpetrate violence, by definition — the Crusaders, for example — are not really religious. Australian Muslims constantly say this of terrorists: "These people aren't really Muslims, because Islam is a religion of peace." I understand their predicament, but the argument doesn't work.
First, it's impossible to separate religious motives from the rest to make religion innocent. So the first argument by defenders of religion shares the same flaw as the myth itself. How can you separate religion from politics in Islam when Muslims themselves make no such separation?
Completre article - three pages :
One of the greatest paradoxes of the new milleneum is the Failuer of most antireligiuos elements in the West to take their own tutors seriously.
Modern mind Science supports the idea and importance of all people having "a religion" Its good for you to have one , maybe even necessary! -
Shock horror you say, just don't call it that, like the ageing reactionaries in the West do .Boxing into thin air !
The box is not to be rejected but assimulated
People need a world view to live.Sure they use a world vew to kill too , but take the whole idea seriously or all the West will do is find excuses to DO nothing and DO nothing positive to resist WV that we disagree with .
DENIAL of this reality turns attention away from theeal issue in politial affairs yes religion is critical and if you need a new word for it try World view .
American theologian William Cavanaugh at Melbourne University this month, and I largely follow his argument.
This myth plays a valuable role for secularists. It helps them marginalise Christians and demonise Muslims, and creates a blind spot about violence by the West. It confirms an "us" (the rational, peace-making, secular West) against a "them" (violent fanatics in the Muslim world). To quote Cavanaugh: " Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peace-making and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."
Most religious believers have bought this myth, too. They try to fight it by two arguments. First, they say that violence in the name of religion is really usually about politics or economics. Second, they claim that people who perpetrate violence, by definition — the Crusaders, for example — are not really religious. Australian Muslims constantly say this of terrorists: "These people aren't really Muslims, because Islam is a religion of peace." I understand their predicament, but the argument doesn't work.
First, it's impossible to separate religious motives from the rest to make religion innocent. So the first argument by defenders of religion shares the same flaw as the myth itself. How can you separate religion from politics in Islam when Muslims themselves make no such separation?
Completre article - three pages :
