General The Problem With Religion

[kds1980]

Sinister its absolutely clear that you have no reply to my questions.I am still asking you one simple question ARE socialists,communists not accountable for the economic failure of india ,soviet and other socialist countries who tried to implement policies of marx and other socailists?What about sufferings of millions of these countries.

The above statement of marx is good one but that does not mean entire marxist theory is good.

 

[Sinister]

Sinister its absolutely clear that you have no reply to my questions.I am still asking you one simple question ARE socialists,communists not accountable for the economic failure of india ,soviet and other socialist countries who tried to implement policies of marx and other socailists?What about sufferings of millions of these countries.

Its absolutely clear that I have no desire to answer your rather mundane questions because you do not answer any of mine. An inch for an inch my friend.

The debate was never about whether Marxism was successful or unsuccessful (which you seem to be infatuated with). It was whether atheists are capable of developing morality to help their fellow citizens.

And if you’re such a corporate lap-dog tell me:


Who invented the concept of modern free market enterprise?
DAVID HUME…an agnostic free thinker
ADAM SMITH … look another agnostic freethinker …WOW don’t we look silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6445559.stm
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN? ….look another atheist/agnostic

These men are considered the "fathers of the Capitalist revolution and free market enterprise". So your arguments up until now against marxism have been utterly useless…I didn’t have the heart to tell you before because I didn’t want to hurt your feelings and I wasn’t concerned about any of this but you insisted on making this a pivotal issue in a rather ill devised argument (trying to pin the blame of india's woes on atheist marxist philosophy).
so it seems what saved india is atheist/agnostic free market philosophy. Good to know my another sect of my agnostic brothers could help out the 3rd world (LOL).


Profits, Priests, and Princes: Adam Smith's Emancipation of Economics from Politics and Religion. by Peter Minowitz
Author(s) of Review: Donald Winch
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 742-743

I URGE YOU TO READ THIS JOURNAL ARTICLE AND LEARN SOMETHING FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY!
Stop insulting atheists/agnostics and stop blaming atheistic Marxists for the woes of India…you sound more and more like Hitler going after the JEWS!!!!
india was poor because it was exploited colonial state. Nehru was a marxist and his vision of india was much more intriguing than that of Manmohan Singhs. India is corrupt and it will remain poor until the rise and ask for better rights.

Let me remind you that some of the greatest living standards in are Canada, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland. It is because they fused both free market capitalism (which I am not against) with Socialist philosophy…thus they are the greatest states to live…because they found the middle ground. It is time you also found the middle ground and come down from the peak upon which you stand (where the air is thin).

The above statement of marx is good one but that does not mean entire marxist theory is good.

Where in my posts did I say the entire Marxist theory is good?
In fact I said the Marxist dream was UTOPIAN. Which is the complete opposite of what you stated.

look at the shades of gray!

 

[Archived_Member1]

I URGE YOU TO READ THIS JOURNAL ARTICLE AND LEARN SOMETHING FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY!
Stop insulting atheists/agnostics and stop blaming atheistic Marxists for the woes of India…you sound more and more like Hitler going after the JEWS!!!!

and Godwin's Law holds true once again.

BTW- don't you think you're overreacting just a little tiny bit?

 

[Sinister]

and Godwin's Law holds true once again.

BTW- don't you think you're overreacting just a little tiny bit?

yes that is!
LOL

I can be a drama queen at times

apologies.

still funny though

 

[kds1980]

Its absolutely clear that I have no desire to answer your rather mundane questions because you do not answer any of mine. An inch for an inch my friend.

read my posts i tried to answers all your questions if you have any more then please tell me.

The debate was never about whether Marxism was successful or unsuccessful (which you seem to be infatuated with). It was whether atheists are capable of developing morality to help their fellow citizens.

The debate was not about atheist developing something.The debate was about what atheists have done for humanity and poor people.I am not at all interested who invented what theory
I was reffering to social work You cleverly ignored my post about school orphanages,hospitals and other social work where christians are still the kings.It was you who started giving credits to atheists for inventions of theories and starting movements

Who invented the concept of modern free market enterprise?
DAVID HUME…an agnostic free thinker
ADAM SMITH … look another agnostic freethinker …WOW don’t we look silly.
BBC NEWS | Business | What you should know about Adam Smith
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN? ….look another atheist/agnostic

These men are considered the "fathers of the Capitalist revolution and free market enterprise". So your arguments up until now against marxism have been utterly useless…I didn’t have the heart to tell you before because I didn’t want to hurt your feelings and I wasn’t concerned about any of this but you insisted on making this a pivotal issue in a rather ill devised argument (trying to pin the blame of india's woes on atheist marxist philosophy).
so it seems what saved india is atheist/agnostic free market philosophy. Good to know my another sect of my agnostic brothers could help out the 3rd world (LOL).

As far as i know unlike communism there is no father of modern free market enterprise.Anyway i don't want to in discussion who invented and what invented..

Profits, Priests, and Princes: Adam Smith's Emancipation of Economics from Politics and Religion. by Peter Minowitz
Author(s) of Review: Donald Winch
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 742-743

I will read it please post a link of it

india was poor because it was exploited colonial state. Nehru was a marxist and his vision of india was much more intriguing than that of Manmohan Singhs. India is corrupt and it will remain poor until the rise and ask for better rig

Nehru's policies were failure its fact go to any big indian discussion forum and start this debate and see how many will support nehruvian policies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jawaharlal Nehru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Toward the end of Nehru's term as prime minister, India would continue to face serious food shortages despite hoped for progress and increases in agricultural production. There was mass starvation in states like Bihar due to socialist controls on the economy. Farmers as well as industrialists were ham-strung with controls (License Raj) on their freedom to run their respective businesses. If it was not for the magnanimous and humanitarian help from the US (PL 480) the famines would have brought about starvation and death on an unimaginable scale. Nehru would then have joined Mao Tse Tung and Stalin (his heroes)
in their accomplishment of laying waste to their own populations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me remind you that some of the greatest living standards in are Canada, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland. It is because they fused both free market capitalism (which I am not against) with Socialist philosophy…thus they are the greatest states to live…because they found the middle ground. It is time you also found the middle ground and come down from the peak upon which you stand (where the air is thin).

Did i said that there is no element of socialist policies in those countries

And if you’re such a corporate lap-dog tell me:
Stop insulting atheists/agnostics and stop blaming atheistic Marxists for the woes of India…you sound more and more like Hitler going after the JEWS!!!!

I was expecting these type of gems from you .Please carry on

 

[kds1980]

and Godwin's Law holds true once again.

BTW- don't you think you're overreacting just a little tiny bit?

Kelly ji don't worry whenever i debate with sinister i am fully prepared for these type of gems.

 

[Sinister]

As far as i know unlike communism there is no father of modern free market enterprise.Anyway i don't want to in discussion who invented and what invented..


I will read it please post a link of it

mayday mayday mayday we are losing sentence structure.

no father of free market ideas? really and those economist i listed? they were irrelevant im assuming in developing free market economics and laws (in both america and britain)?

well considering you like wikipedia so much let me return some favours:
History of theory of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:advocate:
go ahead and look up the father of capitalism!

Its a wonder at how tide and tone turns when arguments are dropped on there head. Now all of a sudden you dont wish to discuss who invented what?:{;o:

that-a-boy...your at the first stage...denial OMG
2nd stage...pain
3rd stage....acceptance::
(its a process)

you need to go to the library and read that article from the respective journal. It requires effort. Its available online on JSTOR but you will have to pay for it.

The debate was not about atheist developing something.

hmmmmm....it was about atheists developing something.... just a few posts ago...it was about atheist developing socialism which apparently almost "ruined your motherland" ... and then your motherland was saved by adapting to a philosophy and economic model developed by other atheists/agnostics. or do we suffer from short term memory loss.




as to your question; "what are the contributions made by atheists in terms of hospital beds":
watch the initial youtube video i posted!
the most effecient and one of the most richest chairities is run by an atheist/agnostic who goes by the name BILL GATES.

Warren buffet (another atheist) donated 97% of his assets in his will to the Gates foundation and other various charities ....that is a sum of 33 BILLION dollars. 66 BILLION in will go to charity if you include both.

these people donate not to convert people to the faith (because they dont have any)...not to influence peoples thinking...not to control people .....but solely because they beleive they have the moral obligation to share there wealth.

lets not forget artists...a large chunk of hollywood is atheist and altough spoilt do alot for charitable donations.

of course atheists cant do as much...because they are not organized into groups and dont have a collective conscious or a collective NAME. (add on top of that...they are few number...alot of them keep there veiws private)

for example:
I volunteered my time in several hospitals and I am currently volunteering part-time as a library asistant at library for the visually impaired (I help blind get the books they want and asist them in reading non-braille literature).

that credit is not going to go to "atheism" its going to go towards the government charity I worked for (and I am not looking for any credit...i enjoy doing it). And I dont even think atheists are interested in developing a collective conscious just so that they may be recognized.

atheists/agnostics contribute to society just as much as the rest of the world.
ASIDE: the concept of Saiva is the part about sikhism that I like BEST!

 

[ISDhillon]

This is the way I see it I have no problem in saying such and such ideologies should be seen as a contribution of people rather than religions etc, however I believe that as faith was seen as the redemptive category for man prior to reason, the 21st century society will see "spirit" as the essential category hereonin, I do not believe that religion is necessary for spirit to become the foundational postulate of the new global civilisation, I do however believe that reason has reached an impasse.

Marxism believed that ethno-religious and religious dialect would be sublated into economic categories but the converse has happened, class contradictions are getting mediated through ethnic, ethno-religious contradictions.

As more and more communities start to self-define the will assert themselves more and more, homoginization was a quality which modern nation state thought would be acheived through secularism and unitarian polity but that just isn't the case, corporate self-expression of communities is dubbed as communalism etc etc, you dont need me to go on.

Coming back to sikhism and its "role" be it through "people", I think that it has a purpose which has not been fully lived out, let me say that when imperial powers did what they did during the raj, they in fact have had to undo. The problems I see looming on the horizon as more people in the world start to become indigenous is that those who do not know or possibly have any "roots" will become more and more anguished with their identity, the blacks in america are a good example, the frustration has led to the forging of an identity which is inherently aggressive, this is a product of their passed slavery and the need to be a distinct people they cannot find solace with being the same as those who mistreated them. Then compare this with the identity of blacks in africa and we see no such parallel. I lived in LA for the last year and seen new types of dance which blacks in america have developed which suggest they are trying to rekindle their roots please see: Krumping and clowning.

Apart from society, now lets look at the reductive analytic approach in relation to W H heisenbergs studies of light waves, reason became self-negating, einstein was confounded and said" god does not play dice". Me writing this should not be seen as an attack on science etc but the ideology behind science. Ecosystem is a good example where holism comes into science, we then have spawned terms such as wholes-within-wholes and "systems thinking" and in terms of religion or "people with spirit and effulgence of spirit in the universe", we see that spirit instantiates itself in network linkages of these wholes-within-wholes, as opposed to reducing the material down to its single most constituent the way societies into the lowest common denominator. The human body exists as a whole then we should see the planet as a whole to, stripping man off from his transcendental side has done more damage to the universe as a whole aswell as to man, we all hear about the 2oth century being the most bloodiest, now lets look at the earth, it took billions and billions of year for this earth to develop from unicellular life and took just 3oo year for "modern" ideology to destroy it.

Anyway thats enough negativity for today.

Indy:ice:

 

[kds1980]

mayday mayday mayday we are losing sentence structure.

no father of free market ideas? really and those economist i listed? they were irrelevant im assuming in developing free market economics and laws (in both america and britain)?

well considering you like wikipedia so much let me return some favours:
History of theory of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
go ahead and look up the father of capitalism!

Please take a look at following link of wikipedia
History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalism was there before adam smith.unlike unlike communism Capitalism has no father.You can say that adam smith was father of its written theory or industrial capitalism
Also unlike marx who is very famous and his theory is called marxism nobody call theory of smithism. no political party or any organisation put his photo's infact majority of people don't even know his name

Its a wonder at how tide and tone turns when arguments are dropped on there head.

After reading your gems do you think that i have interest left in debate.If you beleive that i am not worthy to debate then don't reply

Its a wonder at how tide and tone turns when arguments are dropped on there head. Now all of a sudden you dont wish to discuss who invented what?

All of a sudden? read the entire debate and show me where i said that i am interested
in debating about what atheists developed or what theists developed.Infact in whole debate all i am saying that it doesn'nt matter who developed what.In our debate of feminism i said that all credit of feminism should not go to atheists and what was your reply,that feminist movement was started by atheists which i accepted after that you indirectly told Kelly that she cannot be a sikh and a feminist at a time because the movement was started by atheists.Then i showed you participation of religious ladies in feminist movement.my entirte arguement was to you that it does not matter who started a movement or who invented what
also read my earlier statement below

Isn't it sound like hindus claim that everything in sikhism is found was already there in hinduism so all the achievements of sikhs belongs to hinduism.It doesn't matter that who started it.The fact is that liberal feminism has nothing to do with religion.it is mainly concerned with equal rights.

that-a-boy...your at the first stage...denial
2nd stage...pain
3rd stage....acceptance
(its a process)

Your imaginations are realy wild.I haven't accepted even your single arguement:down::down:

hmmmmm....it was about atheists developing something.... just a few posts ago...it was about atheist developing socialism which apparently almost "ruined your motherland" ... and then your motherland was saved by adapting to a philosophy and economic model developed by other atheists/agnostics. or do we suffer from short term memory loss.

You realy have lot of misunderstanding
now let me clear what i was saying
the between communism was started bacuse you tried to show me communism as some kind of acheivement which i disgreed.and now when i asked you about failure of communist countries you said that the point of discussion is not whether marxist theories failed or not.

My thinking about communism is same that it was responsible for millions of deaths
just because it has some good point it does not mean that marx should be shown as some kind of acheiver.

also read my first statement from the entire debate started.

I am also interested to know that apart from earning money and making their careers
What aethists has done for humanti and poor people

I blamed atheists for making money and who makes money .......cap

AS far bill gates and his charity is concerned i will acept your arguement when large scale of charity of bill gates and other atheists will reach india.Infact every sadhu baba of india claims to be doing lot of charitable work but still the only best schools are christian one's.don't know where the charity of these atheists and sadhu baba is going

Now if you have any clarification of any statement then ask me and then post your answer

 

[Sinister]

Hello IS_dhillon

I enjoyed your post well thought out and very deep. I concur, “mankind” is where he is today because of individuals (be they lumped crudely into any category theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, anti-theist). People are all free thinkers.

however I believe that as faith was seen as the redemptive category for man prior to reason, the 21st century society will see "spirit" as the essential category hereonin, I do not believe that religion is necessary for spirit to become the foundational postulate of the new global civilisation, I do however believe that reason has reached an impasse.

I was puzzled, not by the layout, but the words you chose in this paragraph.

What do you mean by the term spirit?
For you is “spirit” an individual/personal construct?
Or are you using the term to represent collective conscious and awareness of group membership? Something a bit more external and impersonal?
Or both?
Or is it something entirely different that I missed?

I’ll have to disagree with your last statement…reason has not reached impasse. Although reason routinely likes to give the impression it is at an impasse.

Marxism believed that ethno-religious and religious dialect would be sublated into economic categories but the converse has happened, class contradictions are getting mediated through ethnic, ethno-religious contradictions.

Yes indeed Marx underestimated the power of group collective conscious

As more and more communities start to self-define the will assert themselves more and more, homoginization was a quality which modern nation state thought would be acheived through secularism and unitarian polity but that just isn't the case, corporate self-expression of communities is dubbed as communalism etc etc, you dont need me to go on.

very true! Although I still believe the State should push for secularism and Unitarian polity.
Now is this a good thing? And is there a distinctive power struggle underneath this shroud of group formation?

My views…right down the middle! Please read on.

Coming back to sikhism and its "role" be it through "people", I think that it has a purpose which has not been fully lived out, let me say that when imperial powers did what they did during the raj, they in fact have had to undo.

Well said!!! Good observation.

The problems I see looming on the horizon as more people in the world start to become indigenous is that those who do not know or possibly have any "roots" will become more and more anguished with their identity, the blacks in america are a good example, the frustration has led to the forging of an identity which is inherently aggressive, this is a product of their passed slavery and the need to be a distinct people they cannot find solace with being the same as those who mistreated them. Then compare this with the identity of blacks in africa and we see no such parallel. I lived in LA for the last year and seen new types of dance which blacks in america have developed which suggest they are trying to rekindle their roots please see: Krumping and clowning.

From my understanding you are implying that religion is going to fill the gap and give identity to the people who actively seek it…. Without this institution our Sikh community will be in anguish (with individuals trying to find themselves).
Which is very much true. But…to be fair…

Let me show the opposite side of the spectrum:

Identity (of ethnic roots) may be formed without any religious backdrop. If we examine George Hebert Mead’s ideas of the formation of “Self” this may become more transparent. The concept of identity emerges and develops as an aspect of the social process of interaction. And if we bring Simmel into this sphere…the search for identity is the primary agent for any group formation. (be it religious or a non-religious organization) …both types of group formation can provide the person with a sense of “self” and belonging.

Why you need to add the definitive belief in God (which every monotheistic religion entails) is now altogether irrelevant. Strong family, peer groups, and ethnic institutions can substitute religion and aid an individual in forming a self and group identity.

The Distinctive Problem with Religion (and why I believe it should not fulfill this role):

There is a chance of excessive non-assimilation (if thats a word...or polarization) from host community. This leads to the formation of what many scholars call the “middle-man minority”:
The Jews in Europe (in the early 1900’s)
The Hindu’s in African countries (who were kicked out in the 70’s)
This is slightly more harmful and creates VAST communal tensions. These communities already differ in phenotypes, and then on top of that, is another alien label of religion.

Religious institutions carry a huge weight on the minority. If non-progressive in thought, they may end up trapping an individual and hinder his/her upward mobility.

There are dangers associated with religious institutions acting as buffers between host and minority communities. You may get the production of both ethnic and religious enclaves within the residing society …fuelled by religion these communities are bound to amalgamate fears within the host community (and tensions at one point or another are likely to boil over the pot)

We saw this clearly during the French Riots not too long ago. And also with the increasing tensions that exists in England between the Islamic and host community. Another example being the civil wars that occurred in Lebanon, India, Iraq, etc. etc. (countless others).

Religion may relieve initial anguish and aid a person in the formation of identity but the long term implications of this ‘strong group formation’ are fully expressed in Georg Simmel's works. (i think...lol)
So, in this respect I believe religions time has come (but it wont roll over and perish anytime soon). Like Nietzsche said: “God is dead, but his shadow will linger on the walls for some time to come” (the shadow referring to the institution and possibly religions ability to continue to act as an agent of group formation)

Religion (like nationality) is an extremely potent force that develops an extremely strong collective conscious (what you term “spirit”). Once the collective conscious is formed, the elite may use it to create division and fear and ensure their supremacy (unity and obedience through hate is what I have seen first hand over and over and over).

Secularism and inidividuality must prevail for peace.

And you think yourself to be negative … look at me… lol


I have agreed and disagreed on some other points you raised but I cannot get to them all. (no time)

we all hear about the 2oth century being the most bloodiest, now lets look at the earth, it took billions and billions of year for this earth to develop from unicellular life and took just 3oo year for "modern" ideology to destroy it.

Anyway thats enough negativity for today.[/quote]


Again that’s a rather pessimistic position…we could debate but really there would be no point.


cheers

 

[Sinister]

Please take a look at following link of wikipedia
History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalism was there before adam smith.unlike unlike communism Capitalism has no father.You can say that adam smith was father of its written theory or industrial capitalism
Also unlike marx who is very famous and his theory is called marxism nobody call theory of smithism. no political party or any organisation put his photo's infact majority of people don't even know his name

DUHH!! you think i dont know that?

I guess socialism was present long before KARL MARX....ever heard of hunter-gatherer societies? Many economies before the arrival of Marx were Communes!!!

don't forget the practice of communal farming...present in ancient rome


im talking about the rise of modern Capitalism!!!!!
just like you talk about the rise in modern Socialism.....please think in relative terms.
and now you are debating for the sake of argument and not interested in learning.

Adam smith was an economist who developed the theory of modern capitalism!!!!! along with countless others theorists .... Modern Capitalism and modern Socialism are both products of the enlightement (look up what this revolution brought).

the means of production before Capitalism was termed : the Feudal economy where everything and all commons belonged to Nobility (and could be ceased on demand). Adam Smith smith was obviously a parlimentarian and fought to ensure the british nobility could not control emerging businesses!

Benjamin Frankling....literally solidified capitalism into the american consitution (another atheist)

Adam Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also unlike marx who is very famous and his theory is called marxism nobody call theory of smithism. no political party or any organisation put his photo's infact majority of people don't even know his name

what in gods good name are you talking about!...he is one of the most quoted and distinguished economists EVERRR!!!!!! His face appears on the 20 pound bank note (british currency). I already gave you the link for that! (which you probably didn't go and check out)

after reading your post i have come to a conclusion that you do not know that much about economics or social history... so it is pointless to carry on with this debate. If you would like to know more... pm me or give me your email and we can discuss economics/history on some other channel.

AS far bill gates and his charity is concerned i will acept your arguement when large scale of charity of bill gates and other atheists will reach india.Infact every sadhu baba of india claims to be doing lot of charitable work but still the only best schools are christian one's.don't know where the charity of these atheists and sadhu baba is going

PS:
Bill Gates just gave 760 million to india for AIDS awareness, education....
Bill Gates Pumps Money into India, Education, Localization

go ahead and look it up
and kds?
do you volunteer your time anywhere?
or are you too busy preaching morality to agnostics?:rofl!!:

 

[Archived_Member_19]

I=god , i=God

 

[S|kH]

I=god , i=God

Lol, why is this post in this thread? :down:

Are you implying that individuals who use "god" have an ego, thats why they use I ?

Because "God" can read text and he knows if I type in lower capital letters that I am disrespecting him?

I thought sikhs don't believe in useless traditions that don't prove to be holy? (Throw water at the sun for appeasing the sun god ? Capitalize God's name to appease the Almighty One?)

god, God, Allah, allah, I thought it was all supposed to mean the same?

god's got a pretty big ego if he judges based upon capitalized letters

 

[ISDhillon]

Hey sinister

People are all free thinkers.

Some are freethinkers some choose to be followers and choice is good for all as long as that choice does not infringe on others.

I was puzzled, not by the layout, but the words you chose in this paragraph.

What do you mean by the term spirit?
For you is “spirit” an individual/personal construct?
Or are you using the term to represent collective conscious and awareness of group membership? Something a bit more external and impersonal?
Or both?
Or is it something entirely different that I missed?

spirit is an outpouring of energy which is creative and configures in new varieties and sets new trends.

I’ll have to disagree with your last statement…reason has not reached impasse. Although reason routinely likes to give the impression it is at an impasse.

I disagree for the reasons I gave in my last post.

Yes indeed Marx underestimated the power of group collective conscious

I disagree, the power of group collective conscious is not the reason for the contradictions it is the outpouring of energy in the form of spirit, if it were group power then why is it that majorities cannot configure new variations of identity which would homogenize minorities? Surely the power is in number? and that this would be both logical and reasonable to predict. It is this negation of reason which were seeing today, I know of no black man who names his son winston anymore, they prefer jamaal or aleesha etc.

very true! Although I still believe the State should push for secularism and Unitarian polity.

this is dangerous, i believe an attitudinal change is required which will see equality in terms of seeing the equal co-validity of a concept rather than reducing all to their lowest common denominators in the aim of finding some sort of commanality between men, how often do we hear our politicians talk of muslims who are radical being a minority? this simply is not the case the majority if anything have radical views and this is something they are entitled to enterntain within their communities.

Now is this a good thing? And is there a distinctive power struggle underneath this shroud of group formation?

My views…right down the middle! Please read on.

no power struggle although i will admit that on some level some communities are trying to salvage a sense of self worth, however this cannot be said of identity in general as definition self-identity cannot be surrendered to the other, the other should exist in contrast to another whilst both stick to their respective identities they further define one anothers individual characteristics this is the only solution to a plural society and this cannot be acheived when the state has an ideology of assimilation.

From my understanding you are implying that religion is going to fill the gap and give identity to the people who actively seek it…. Without this institution our Sikh community will be in anguish (with individuals trying to find themselves).

Which is very much true. But…to be fair…

not just religion, cultural diversity to man is as important as biodiversity is to nature - I stole this from the united nations speech lol

Let me show the opposite side of the spectrum:

Identity (of ethnic roots) may be formed without any religious backdrop.

true

If we examine George Hebert Mead’s ideas of the formation of “Self” this may become more transparent. The concept of identity emerges and develops as an aspect of the social process of interaction.

notice the words emerge and develops, this I believe is through a "fitting-in" process I dont necessarily belive i must interact with anyone to develop an identity many genres such as goths, punks etc came from individuals who had an outpouring of energy in the environment they lived in they fitted their internal interpretation of reality as an outward manifestation and yes then and only then through social interaction did goths and punks arrive at an identity. I do not believe that sikhism holds spirit in the same context as other religions which is perhaps why I argue from this point.

Why you need to add the definitive belief in God (which every monotheistic religion entails) is now altogether irrelevant. Strong family, peer groups, and ethnic institutions can substitute religion and aid an individual in forming a self and group identity.

The simple answer is why not? Did religious identities come from families? Did punks hells angels, hip-hop come from families? I dont think so families exist as a support system I fail to see how my family is creating the ideology of my identity perhaps if one were to dress like the brady bunch and or perhaps model their lives on 20's pleasentville style household then yes i hope you see where i am going with this. I do not believe that identies should be limited to families and peers groups, the only problem is the definition of all religious concepts and even the "lumping of a ideology into a religion" should not be surrendered to the state or anyone else for that matter, there is also an issue of contribution here which is important to mention when considering self-determination of identities, I believe contribution in itself is irrelevant if I believe that pearcing my body will give me bliss then thats all I will do to hell with contributing to society .

The Distinctive Problem with Religion (and why I believe it should not fulfill this role):

There is a chance of excessive non-assimilation (if thats a word...or polarization) from host community. This leads to the formation of what many scholars call the “middle-man minority”:
The Jews in Europe (in the early 1900’s)
The Hindu’s in African countries (who were kicked out in the 70’s)
This is slightly more harmful and creates VAST communal tensions. These communities already differ in phenotypes, and then on top of that, is another alien label of religion.

integration yes ,no no no to assimliation, in punjab their is no assimilation yet their is integration, you have religions which are interlinked by the "punjabiyat" and then you have the respective religious identies therein and this process works all be it we have had problems. And again the problem is with people not the religions why should a religion be disregarded because the majority are unsuccessfull???? If anything it is the religion which obviously gives greater through its people in thise situations, and let me say it cannot be ignored that jews are the most creative and genius people I have ever come across I respect the jews and I believe this stems from my upbringing as a sikh you must ask christians what was lacking in the vision of their religions as to why they could not extend the same admiration.

Religious institutions carry a huge weight on the minority. If non-progressive in thought, they may end up trapping an individual and hinder his/her upward mobility.

this can be said of secular governments also towards religious minorities, such as the hindus in africa.

We saw this clearly during the French Riots not too long ago. And also with the increasing tensions that exists in England between the Islamic and host community. Another example being the civil wars that occurred in Lebanon, India, Iraq, etc. etc. (countless others).

I feel that you have some good points but there is a lot of generalisation here to pin-point and blame these occurences on religion is incredibly myopic, france is just about ready to eat cake they have not done much in the way of economic uplift, in LA i met alot of french people who sympathised with the backlash from the suburban areas of paris and stated that the existing model does not work. Again does this not come down to marx trickled down theory? if the model worked then why is it that this eruption came through ethnic reliogious medium?

Religion may relieve initial anguish and aid a person in the formation of identity but the long term implications of this ‘strong group formation’ are fully expressed in Georg Simmel's works. (i think...lol)
So, in this respect I believe religions time has come (but it wont roll over and perish anytime soon). Like Nietzsche said: “God is dead, but his shadow will linger on the walls for some time to come” (the shadow referring to the institution and possibly religions ability to continue to act as an agent of group formation)

it is a very different reality to me I get my strenght from gurbani, i get my determination from gurbani but if this is the status of others who am I to argue, if I were to say what I really believe I will say that religion is not fashionable and we will have in the future a permenent place for it like we do different species unlike the dodo we will not be destroyed by green house gases lol.


I am currently studying a masters in sustainable development and one of the intiatives that the government is doing byway of integration is investing in communities the way we do this is by creating museams, givng media to specific groups, sponsoring trips to peoples native countries. It is important to build sustainable communities I will tell you why this is the only way for peace, when we allow a community or religious group or ethnicity to fully explore and reveal their identities they can and will configure as long as they the investment to make this change, with time identities will change and develop within those communities which will foster greater relationships with the other, this is the way in which integration is possible, assimlation is a means to taboo difference, and difference like the old taboo of sex will be harmonised. Look at the taboo of sex? now when we see scantily clad figures on tv we do not become bashfull or prudish but recognise it as a scantily clad figure on tv, in the same way we will come to recognise the identities of different communities and people and realise that this is what forms the rich tapestry of civilsation.


anyway go to go

indy

 

[spnadmin]

ISDillon ji

let me say it cannot be ignored that jews are the most creative and genius people I have ever come across I respect the jews and I believe this stems from my upbringing as a sikh you must ask christians what was lacking in the vision of their religions as to why they could not extend the same admiration.

You are putting forth an issue that deserves an explanation in a Sikh forum -- because the information needed to answer it is not always out in front for non-Christians to understand.

Unlike Judaism, Christianity in most of its forms believes that life after death is a defined state of being.

Many sects of Christians also believe that life after death can include eternal damnation.

Sikhism is very different. Sikhism holds that there may be more than one lifetime to endure after death; however one can be liberated from karma.

Keep in mind that there are many different Christian denominations. And they vary considerably in terms of their belief in eternal damnation. Roman Catholocism sees eternal damnation only for those who consciously and deliberately deny God and choose Evil-- and even with that there are exceptions.

Other groups -- evangelical Christian groups, for example, see things differently. They believe eternal damnation is a very real possibility, for those who have not accepted Jesus as their personal saviour.

Christians who believe in eternal damnation also believe that the only escape is to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and to be baptized in his name. These sects of Christians therefore have a strong commitment to missionary work-- the goal being to save as many souls as possible from damnation. They do this in the name of Jesus. They also believe they are called by God do missionary work, and must obey this command. To save their own souls.

I hope that made sense.

 

[lalihayer]

ਸਹਸ ਸਿਆਣਪਾ ਲਖ ਹੋਹਿ ਤ ਇਕ ਨ ਚਲੈ ਨਾਲਿ ॥
Hundreds of thousands of clever tricks, but not even one of them will go along with you in the end.

 

[kds1980]

Lalihayer ji

Welcome to SPN

please introduce yourself in introduction section

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/annoucements/5626-introducing-myself.html

 

[lalihayer]

Same gentlemen who started this thread arguing agianst religion and talking about Sikhism was suggesting to read Quran in another thread. Correct me if I am wrong?

 

[kds1980]

Same gentlemen who started this thread arguing agianst religion and talking about Sikhism was suggesting to read Quran in another thread. Correct me if I am wrong?

Yes its true but that thread is very old and at that time he has different views now he is an atheist

 

[S|kH]

Same gentlemen who started this thread arguing agianst religion and talking about Sikhism was suggesting to read Quran in another thread. Correct me if I am wrong?

And this has what to do with it?

I recommend people read many books for knowledge. I recommend reading the SGGS to a lot of people, but since this is a SIKH PHILOSOPHY site I assume most of the audience has already read large portions of the scripture, and/or realizes its importance to sikh society. hence why I decided to recommend a book that effected a different community that most sikhs probably refuse to read off ignorance.

KDS, when I recommended the Quran I was not a muslim lol. Yes, my views have changed over time, it's kind of interesting to read later in life (it's like your viewing your growth)