Saturday, September 20, 2014

Let's teach religion...

Religion is very sensitive subject for many people. Very often people tend to get very emotional or passionate while talking in favor or against religion. There are many different religions which are practiced in world, some are very ancient (like Hinduism) and some are relatively new (like Islam). They differ from each other in various aspects, some practices are radically different from each other. Because of differences between practices and rituals of some of these religions communal tensions in different parts of the world (where people practicing these conflicting religions come across each other) is also very common occurrence. People who support the concept and practices of organized religions claim that ultimately all religions teach love and compassion towards each other. They also say that people who are fighting among themselves or spreading hatred in the name of religion doesn't understand the true essence of that religion. At the same time all radical groups or fundamentalists who are present in each and every religion, country and section of society claim that they are the only people who understand the true meaning of that own religion; they claim to be authorized flag bearers or true followers of their faith and call all others as fake, compromised, weak or misguided followers. On the other hand people who criticize organized religion call it a totally outdated concept which has done more harm than good to human race. So there are many different views about concept and practices of religion, these views are very different, some of them are poles apart form each other. 

There is no doubt that religion plays a very important role in many people's lives. For some it is so important that their behavior, thinking and even personality is shaped by their religious affiliation. So if religion is such an important subject why don't we teach it to kids in proper way as we teach them history and science? Please listen to this very wonderful talk by Dan Dennet from where I borrowed the title of the blog. Why don't we present them with all historical facts and figures about each and every religion which is practiced today? Let them know the unbiased version of history of each religion (including their own), let them understand the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of it. In current system they get very biased knowledge about their own religion and rest of religions from their own parents (or family). Many times this information is so biased that it creates false positive image of their own religion and false negative image of other religions in their minds. This image is then magnified by people like politicians or terrorist organizations who want to use these sentiments for their own benefit, this then results in creation of fanatics who claim to do something good for their own religion by harming others who practice some other religion. 

Why can't we teach religion as a subject in schools? Why we can't have unbiased, logical and  fact based discussion about each and every religion? After all everyone who believes in religion say that their religion can stand any type of scrutiny or test, so why not to teach it in very unbiased way. This will help kids from being misguided by people from their own religion as well as clear misconceptions about other religions. This might help to bridge huge gap which we see among followers of different religions and may be sometime in future we could avoid any communal clashes. I know I am stretching it too far but I believe once people are equipped with right information their decision taking capabilities are enhanced, they are less prone to make wrong choices. Our job should be to provide correct unbiased information and expect for it to produce desired results, we do this in the area of science and history so why not with religion? I believe concerned people should think over this topic and come up with some viable plan. Now a days sex education is becoming a part of many school curriculum, finally many societies and countries are agreeing to the fact that it is necessary to give youths a proper sex education. Sex is very integral and important part of human life, so giving proper information about this subject at right age will definitely benefit students, it will help to make them proper choices in their lives. Same way if religion is such an important aspect of many people's lives why not to take the similar approach in this case also? 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright : Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. Let's teach religion — all religion — in schools-TED talk
2. Letting go of God-TED talk

25 comments:

  1. After going through you blog Vinay I found the topics you deal with are pointing and need-of-the-hour topics. So keep it up.

    I would like to present a few arguments based on what you have said. These are arguments are not for or against your post. Rather take them as questioning further or an enquiry to reach the truth. I must add that what I have wriiten here is not to hurt or attack anyone's faith but rather to instigate them to use reason and logic.

    "why don't we teach it to kids in proper way as we teach them history and science?"

    Are we, as parents or teachers, fully equipped to teach others religion? How much do we ourselves know about religion in the first place? Have we ever questioned any religious practices, customs or traditions i.e. do we have a scientific approach when we teach religion? Are we aware of the entire history of the religion that we claim to adhere to so much? Are we aware that religious teachings have been changed and manipulated so many times in history that even experts are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff? The original Bible has been changed so many times to suit the needs of the time and region that what we have now is but a "censored" version of the Holy Book. The same is spoken of the Gita. I can understand that it speaks of philosophy. But is it sensible to talk volumes of philosophy that runs into 18 chapters (which may well consume several hours) when there are two bloodthirsty armies standing face to face ready to wage war? Can we not start by asking simple questions like these?

    "Our job should be to provide correct unbiased information and expect for it to produce desired results, we do this in the area of science and history so why not with religion?"

    If religion is such an important aspect of many people's lives, why can't we base religion on facts rather than on faith?

    "Sex is very integral and important part of human life, so giving proper information about this subject at right age will definitely benefit students, it will help to make them proper choices in their lives. Same way if religion is such an important aspect of many people's lives why not to take the similar approach in this case also?"

    The practical difficulties would be to decide "which religion" to teach? Or rather how to judge which religion to teach? Most would answer that it should be the religion of the parents. But what if parents belong to different faiths?
    Or say, we agree to teach the religion which is most practised in that particular region. Then how about the minority who does not belong to that faith?

    We all forget that religion should be 'a way of living life'. What we have made of religion is 'blind following of customs and practices'.

    dr. suhas desai

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a lot Dr. Suhas for visiting the blog and sharing your thoughts. These type of comments and discussions make posts more interesting. I like when people contribute constructively with an intention of carrying the discussion forward. As far as your question of deciding which religion to teach, my answer is teach all of them. Present students with all available facts and figures, let them know that many of the so called holy books had been modified to suit the needs of that particular religion at different junctures of history. Let's have a committee of experts which can decide on syllabus for this subject. I know it won't be easy and there will be lot of resistance but it also happened when science was introduced or very recently when sex education was introduced in school curriculum...so one has to go through this process of scrutiny and resistance if we want to introduce something new and unconventional...thanks again for sharing your views, please keep on sharing them regularly.

      Delete
    2. Discussing further.

      How many religions are we going to teach? Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Zorostriansim, Christianity, Islam. And this is only India that I am talking of.

      I know introducing sex education is a challenge but then looking at our society it is relatively easier to talk of sex today compared to talking about religion. Firstly, sex is a definite process and there is only one natural way of doing it. By natural I mean that which gives rise to progeny. Postures are mere variants of doing the same thing. Rest all could be called as mere entertainment. Religion is different though. There is no natural way and neither is there any one single path. Sometimes the paths seem contrary to each other.

      Secondly, when we talk of sex education, we talk of what it is, how it happens, etc. More importantly we also talk of the darker side. This includes unprotected sex, sexually transmitted diseases, prostitution, etc. Do we have all the guts to talk of the darker side of religion? And I am sure that if one were to actually understand the darker side of religion, he would start hating religion more than prostitution. And I doubt how may will actually stand this test. This is perhaps why they don't introduce religion the way they do science.

      Well, to make things simpler for our universities who may be wondering about the syllabus on the "darker side" or let's call it a rational analysis of religions, I should suggest Sususnaga Weeraperuma's book 'Major religions of India', a brilliant attempt to analyse the Indian religions in a true scientific spirit. And for Chrisitainity I should suggest 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

      dr. suhas desai

      Delete
    3. Actually I don't think they teach about finite (or graphic) details about sexual act and postures during sex education in schools...it is mainly about understanding our body, its hormonal changes and what is sexual act and its consequences. This training is also supposed to help them to understand what is sexual harassment and how to deal with it. Same approach we need to take about religion. Already indirectly it is taught in subjects like history and social studies or language by incorporating some stories from mythology. So it not that they don't teach it in schools but it is not taught under the name of religion.

      [There is no natural way and neither is there any one single path. Sometimes the paths seem contrary to each other.]

      this is what we need to teach, that there is no single religion or single path and some of them contradict each other. There is no right or wrong here, these are just different perspectives. So the key is to learn to deal with the contradictions not to fight with each other because of it. People lack this understanding that there can be more than one paths (or religions) and they all can coexist. Their own religion doesn't try to teach this, rather most of them teach theirs is the only right path and all others are wrong. If teaching religion can inculcate simple belief of tolerance then it can solve lot of problems. We should aim to introduce tolerance towards each others beliefs as long as they are within the framework of law.

      I know it is not going to be easy, there will be many hurdles to cross but I think it is worth a try because the risk which we are taking by not teaching it is huge and we already know what damage religious fanaticism can do...so let's try to counter it.

      Delete
    4. To the dr who comments--
      [[The same is spoken of the Gita. I can understand that it speaks of philosophy. But is it sensible to talk volumes of philosophy that runs into 18 chapters (which may well consume several hours) when there are two bloodthirsty armies standing face to face ready to wage war?]]

      This comment makes you look foolish and ignorant. Clearly you have very little understanding of Hindu relgion so please refrain from making assumptions.
      Already by calling ‘two blood thirsty armies’, shows your dim biased view and is a good example of how dangerous it is for people like you or even teachers like you who may be just as ignorant to teach to kids. Comments like this can create conflicts and bring bad name to a good relgion.
      This is how terrorist use good books for their own agendas and you are not very different from them by making these rash comments.


      You even have the audacity to say that 18 chapters are too long! How ridiculous. Do you think History science geograpghy etc can be taught in one chapter? No! It takes the entire year of the student to learn it. Even then its not complete.



      [[If religion is such an important aspect of many people's lives, why can't we base religion on facts rather than on faith?]]
      There you go again. Little knowledge is dangerous thing. Religion is based on the concept of faith, facts and philosophy so how can you teach it otherwise.


      Delete
    5. Vinay, it is really unfortunate that people often misinterpret what we write based on their own biased views and refrain from looking at the world with fresher perspectives. Please give your inputs too Vinay.

      [[You even have the audacity to say that 18 chapters are too long! How ridiculous. Do you think History science geograpghy etc can be taught in one chapter? No! It takes the entire year of the student to learn it. Even then its not complete.]]

      You have missed the point by miles. I completely agree that science, etc. cannot be taught in one chapter. It may take a year or may be more. But do you think the Kauravas would have waited for one year for the student Arjuna to learn and pick up his syllabus ??

      [[Little knowledge is dangerous thing.]]

      May be. And I haven't claimed to have all that knowledge, have I?
      Moreover, I don't think there is anyone in this world who can claim to have all the knowledge of everything under the sun. Not even Nobel laureates. To quote the great Isaac Newton:

      “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

      Now as per your statement, even Isaac Newton should be called a dangerous man.

      So, if you claim to have full knowledge of Hinduism then one would have expected you to be the next Shankaracharya by now.

      [[Religion is based on the concept of faith, facts and philosophy so how can you teach it otherwise.]]

      What sense does this statement ever make?
      Either say "Religion is based on faith, facts and philosophy" or you say "Religion is a concept based on faith, facts and philosophy".

      dr. suhas desai

      Delete
    6. to the Doctor


      [[it is really unfortunate that people often misinterpret what we write based on their own biased views and refrain from looking at the world with fresher perspectives.]]

      I only wished you had applied unbiased teaching to your own self before complaining about others understanding.



      [[But do you think the Kauravas would have waited for one year for the student Arjuna to learn and pick up his syllabus ??]]

      I don’t even know what point you are trying to make so I will make this few points.

      This BG chapter has already taken place and Arjuna has already heard the lessons of life –so there is no point asking if the Kauravas waited or not. They did.


      Religious teachings are for class children to be done in a year for ALL relgions and not just Hindusim.
      In that time the teacher has to sqeeze the Bible the New Testamanet, The Koran, the Bhagvad Gita, Vedas, Guru Granth, Jain and Buddhist texts and so forth. So the question of 18 chapters does not even come inot play.

      The school/teachers has to focus on bite size information from all aspects of the relgions. They clearly cant get involved in the indepth philosophy -- never mind about the wrongs of the relgion which could trigger volumes of discussion.

      Religious lessons are already given in UK schools and they focus on the good values of all relgions.
      We cant incite children into hating others relgion by focusing on some PERCIVED negative ASPECT!
      These thigns need to be done in Higher Educations such as Universities.


      [May be. And I haven't claimed to have all that knowledge, have I?]]
      Then please refrain from making wrongful assumptions about the two armies and 18 chapter of Hindu philisophy.
      When others (who are learning Hindusim) read what you write, it can breed false teachings –especially if they respect you as a Dr. and forget that you are not an expert or have little knowledge on the subject.
      I don’t expect you to be a specialist or knowledgable but just careful what you write –and not make comments which unreasonably ‘attacks’ the relgion.

      Yes Newton would have been a bigger and a more dangerous man if he wrote what you did because his influence would have been greater.



      (((([[Religion is based on the concept of faith, facts and philosophy so how can you teach it otherwise.]]
      What sense does this statement ever make?
      Either say "Religion is based on faith, facts and philosophy" or you say "Religion is a concept based on faith, facts and philosophy".)))))

      I guess if you read my answer on its own then I agree it makes no sense, but reading it in the context of your question which reads :-“why can't we base religion on facts rather than on faith?”
      then my reply makes sense. But agreed. I could have answered it better.

      Delete
    7. Dr. Suhas, one thing which I learned from all my discussions, debates (either here on blog or somewhere else) that if you voice any opinion which is different (or in contradiction) than general public perception then you are bound to face some strong reactions from some believers of that popular perception. I get these type of comments all the time whenever there is some believer who is in disagreement with my views, many choose to use polite language to express their thoughts and many don't , I guess it is their choice. Some even get too personal while attacking your views they try to attack you as a person. Rather than discussing the issue or debating the topic some try to attack your personality, or try to question your intelligence. I am not saying this with respect to this particular comment but this is what my general observation is. We should try to ignore these things and try to focus on topic. People often misinterpret the comments, it is good to offer clarification (which you did) and expect them to understand what you really mean.

      Now as far as what I think about faith, I think that faith (on which many religions are based) don't need any facts, people just believe in things because they are told to do so. Some call is faith, some call it blind faith, I often see a trend which is whatever I believe is faith and whatever others do is blind faith. So often it is not easy to convince people that there is very thin line between faith and blind faith. That's why I said it won't be easy to cross the hurdle of faith and then teach religion as a academic subject.

      Once you start studying anything academically your faith should not come in between otherwise it hinders the questioning process. May be I am wrong, but this what I have seen so far, if you go to any religious gathering you can see that people hesitate to ask tough questions. They feel that speaker or believers might feel offended if they ask those questions.

      I agree with you that no one can claim to have full knowledge. I don;t think there is something called full knowledge (not even Google) or there is any book which answers all the questions. That is why we have so many branches of various subjects and we are continuously adding new findings in each and every branch.

      The intention of this post was to initiate the discussion on why not to teach religion systematically? Why not to introduce all religions to students with all available facts so that they get somewhat unbiased picture of it rather than getting very biased view. This might help us to negate some adverse effects of organized religion, which is playing a divisive role rather than unifying the society.

      Delete
    8. Vinay
      [[[… if you voice any opinion which is different (or in contradiction) than general public perception then you are bound to face some strong reactions from some believers of that popular perception.]]

      Come on Vinay. Stop playing the violin. If your opinions are contradictory then you are bound to get a response (strong or otherwise) and I think the good Dr knows that already.


      [[Once you start studying anything academically your faith should not come in between otherwise it hinders the questioning process..]]

      Isn’t the word academic just another terminology for scientific and a case of “PROVE GOD TO ME”.
      Again you also have not understood the concept of religion. Religion is based on a combination of faith, facts and philosophy.
      If academics and scientist are not willing to understand religion then they clearly have a problem.



      [[May be I am wrong, but this what I have seen so far, if you go to any religious gathering you can see that people hesitate to ask tough questions. They feel that speaker or believers might feel offended if they ask those questions.]]

      You are wrong.



      [[I agree with you that no one can claim to have full knowledge.]]
      This talk is irrelevant to the comment made and is just another deviation from what was discussed. I get a lot of this from people who just don’t stick to the topic in hand.



      [[The intention of this post was to initiate the discussion on why not to teach religion systematically? Why not to introduce all religions to students with all available facts so that they get somewhat unbiased picture of it rather than getting very biased view. This might help us to negate some adverse effects of organized religion, which is playing a divisive role rather than unifying the society.]]

      Well if only you had made that clear from the onset then people wouldn’t be misled into thinking differently.


      Delete
    9. I didn't know that "the word academic just another terminology for scientific"...for me they are totally different...in academia one can study anything; starting from arts (including poems and songs), history, music, mythology or current affairs...and science is only based on facts, data and hypothesis. The word scientific has very different meaning for me than word academic, may be for you they are same.

      As usual I am amazed about your capacity to pass judgments about others, especially about what others understand and what not. I don't think anyone is interested in that. But it seems you can’t stop from commenting about these things. As usual I need to ignore this.

      [Religion is based on a combination of faith, facts and philosophy]

      Actually what is not based on these things? Take any movie, book or anything they are based on at least one of these three things...so what does this statement prove? We are talking here about teaching all aspects of religion, not trying to analyze what religion is, the post is not about it.

      [You are wrong. ]

      Let me witness any such gathering where people ask all type of questions and grill the speaker. Where all questions are welcomed, respected and answered without a questioner being branded as atheist or non believer. I would be more than happy to attend such gatherings, so far I have not seen any, share recording of any if you know any. I attended many where it seems I was the only one with some uncomfortable questions. I know that Dr. Zakir Naik loves to conduct such gatherings where he encourages people to ask any questions, but then he ridicules their faith and tries to intimidate or insult them rather than answering the question. But I am happy for you that you have been to such gatherings.

      The comment about full knowledge was not even directed towards you. It was with reference to some lines in Dr. Suhas's comment so don't worry it was relevant for someone may be not for you, everything written in my comments is not directed towards you.

      And the title of the post itself makes the topic very clear...if you didn't get it then let me explain once again, it is about why we can’t teach religion in school. If you didn't understand it in first shot then it's not my problem. If you get misled by anything it is your responsibility, I know what I wrote but I have no control over what you understood from it. Learn to accept sometimes that you didn’t get the topic, rather than every time putting blame on someone else. Thanks

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Dr. Desai has posed some pointed questions in his initial comments which need deeper reflection. It is unfortunate to see some of these questions being misinterpreted or dragged too far away from the subject matter. This draws me back to the very first line of Vinay's post here which is prophetic in itself: "Religion is very sensitive subject for many people". We can already see it come alive here.

      However, I sincerely hope that readers understand that we are here neither to attack on anyone (directly or indirectly) nor to defend ourselves pointlessly. One ought to debate or argue healthily which means without being personal and by sticking to the subject matter in question. One must also understand that the ultimate purpose is not to fight or defend but to reach the truth, or at least to get closer to it.

      Delete
    12. You are right Vinay. And Claustrophobe, I fully agree with you. All my questions were made as an enquiry through which we can gain further knowledge by sharing. It was not that I aslready know answers to all these questions. Even as a doctor I cannot claim to have all knowledge of medicine which is my own field. My attempt here was only to understand the intracacies involved in the subject in question, the various practical problems that can possibly arise, and the various hurdles one needs to consider and tackle in thie process.

      One of my points which seems to have offended a fellow here, was never about the Gita. I agree the Gita has a deeper philosophy. I have already said that in my very first comment. But the point was about the context in which the Gita was delivered and not the Gita itself. However, this point was completely missed and was dragged. Vinay has said it correctly that people often misinterpret the comments.

      So Vinay I think it wise not to give undue attention to such commentors who will only interpret the statements the way they want missing the spirit of it completely. It is better to ignore as not only are the comments personal but totally missing the point and topic. So I am refraining from answering any further.

      dr. suhas desai

      Delete
    13. I also agree that one should ignore personal attacks and try to focus on the topic of discussion. I try to remind people about refraining from commenting anything personal, but you can see that people still do it, but I continue my efforts with hope that one day they will realize and stop doing it.

      I also agree that we need to cross many hurdles and overcome many difficulties before people even consider this proposal. But as religion is such an important subject for many people I thought it will be better for them if they learn it from some unbiased source rather than from very biased source which often presents only one side of the story. This might help in increasing tolerance towards each others religious beliefs. Chemists or physicists don't kill each other over some disagreement; they debate, argue very ferociously but they never indulge in violence because they know that disagreement is an integral part of human nature and that is how we proceed, generate new knowledge. This type of tolerance is absent when people discuss about religion. May be proper training can solve this problem. This is just an assumption and that is why we are debating about pros and cons of this approach.

      Delete
  2. To Vinay

    [[Actually what is not based on these things? so what does this statement prove?]]
    If you read carefully at what you implied in your writing and read what the dr wrote then you will get your answer.

    [[We are talking here about teaching all aspects of religion, not trying to analyze what religion is, the post is not about it.]]
    lol. You are the one trying to tell everyone that religion should be studied academically and Im telling you that that this is not the correct way to learn religion or teach religion.
    So there is no tangent to the topic.

    [[Let me witness any such gathering where people ask all type of questions and grill the speaker. Where all questions are welcomed, respected and answered without a questioner being branded as atheist or non believer. I would be more than happy to attend such gatherings, so far I have not seen any, share recording of any if you know any.]]
    If the asker is sincere then the answer will be sincere in any place in any country at any time. The problem is the asker is always unwilling to understand.
    You my friend are a very good example of someone who is so blinded by your own opinions that even when a good answer is given you refuse to accept it. Therefore Im not surprised that you wont find any. Ive talked to you many times here nad your ignorance is just BEYOND incredible.


    [[it is about why we can’t teach religion in school.]]
    But they do teach it schools so I don’t even know what schools you talk of which don’t. Perhaps American schools don’t but you have not clarified any country. In UK they teach all religions correctly to children.






    Dear claustrophobe
    [[we are here neither to attack on anyone (directly or indirectly) nor to defend ourselves pointlessly. One ought to debate or argue healthily which means without being personal and by sticking to the subject matter in question.]]

    When the answers given are ‘attacking’ the religion then you have nothing to say because in your minds eye this is all acceptable.
    How is it that you so called ‘we’ (as you describe it)--are allowed to attack the religion and we cannot defend it?
    Posting ignorant and misinformed views is not a healthy talk.
    First you ask the people who give reply to RESPECT the religion and gain a proper UNDERSTANDING of the religion.
    So please stop trying to make me the villain here then come and preach your noble right from wrong.

    [[But the point was about the context in which the Gita was delivered and not the Gita itself. However, this point was completely missed and was dragged.]]
    No it was not.
    Go and read exactly what you wrote --then perhaps you might even figure out your faults. Writing in ignorance is not an acceptable as it produces misinformation to others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Suhas and Claustrophone...now you know what type of things I have to deal with in comments section of blog...:)..anyways as always I am not interested in any personal attacks so now I just ignore those parts of comment..some people derive some sort of pleasure by getting too personal so let them enjoy it, I am not one of them.

      to Anonymous,
      In your comment you say that it is not proper way of teaching religion (by teaching it in schools) and then you go on saying that in UK they teach all religions correctly in schools...so what you actually want to say?? Shall we try to teach religion in schools or not? Take a clear stand on this and put your points to support it. Lot of space, time and energy is wasted in your comments to attack other people rather than to discuss the issue in hand. Please elaborate little more on the issue and what you think about it, that will help more rather than telling who is what. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous,

      Either you get too carried away by your thoughts or your mind is simply not prepared to read what others are saying. You have already done that to Vinay's and Dr. Desai's statements. Now again when I have written it so clearly you are misinterpreting it.

      I had written: "we are here neither to attack on anyone". Read my original statement again.

      Do you ever know that the English word "anyone" signifies a "person" and not a "thing"? So, to simplify it further, "we are here neither to attack on anyone" means "we are not here to attack any person" - which includes you, me, Vinay, Dr. Desai and all other readers irrespective of whether they agree to your point or not. Simply put, it means: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ATTACKING A PERSON.

      Now, religion is not a person, dear friend, (unless, of course, you call yourself a poet and personify it). Which clearly means that it is open to attack like any other thing, the condition being that it must be the subject matter of the post. This is what I meant when I said "by sticking to the subject matter in question". So, to simply further, RELIGION, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER OBJECT OR THING, CAN BE OPEN TO ATTACK PROVIDED IT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER. However, we are here discussing about certain ASPECTS OF RELIGION and not about RELIGION AS A WHOLE.

      Now, before you drag this discussion off the track once again, when I have said "religion" it DOES NOT mean "any one single religion". So, if you are a Hindu PLEASE do not consider this as an attack on Hinduism. We - you, me, Vinay and other readers - are here more to tackle with the INSTITUTION called religion, and not any one religion singled out.

      You also seem to raise objection to my using the word "we". Now, "we" does not always mean "you and me" or "me and someone else". It can be used as a general term and can be unequivocally replaced by the word "one". So, when I said "we are here neither to attack on anyone", it meant "One is not here to attack anyone". Your objection only shows how much personal you seem to take the comments made here which unfortunately is in direct contrast to the very object of this post, and of this blog, in general.

      Delete
  3. The last paragraph is for the dr

    ReplyDelete
  4. Vinay
    [[Dr. Suhas and Claustrophone...now you know what type of things I have to deal with in comments section of blog...:)..anyways as always I am not interested in any personal attacks]]
    As usual you ‘incite’ people into believing you. I have not made any personal attack on anyone. If I have called you ignorant of understanding then this is the truth from my perspective and not an attack on you.

    [[so what you actually want to say??]]
    Try to keep up with the conversation please. Don’t just ask pointless questions as it simply wastes time which I don’t have. Read what I have written and it will all make sense.



    Claustrophone
    To be honest I don’t even want to respond to anything you have written because nothing you have said answers my points or is correct in terms of your understanding of what I wrote.
    But what I will say is when you try to give an example that [[RELIGION, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER OBJECT OR THING, CAN BE OPEN TO ATTACK PROVIDED IT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER.]] it just seems how little knowledge you have of religion and not worthy of any respect.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please read section of my comment which was addressed to you, please do not to respond to the portion which was for other people. If you focus on part which was addressed to you then you will understand what questions I asked and why. If you get that then please comeback and continue the discussion, there is no point in repeating same things again and again. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      [[To be honest I don’t even want to respond]]

      I wish you had been that honest and not responded.

      [[nothing you have said answers my points]]

      That is because you have not made any "point" at all. So there is no "point" in arguing endlessly.



      Vinay,

      [[Dr. Suhas and Claustrophone...now you know what type of things I have to deal with in comments section of blog...:)]]

      I greatly appreciate the way you put in your efforts to tackle the subject in your post as well as in the comments section. It is a tough task, I know. But subjects like these are bound to have a volley of questions being fired at you from all directions. Just keep going undauntedly.

      After all, a wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.

      Delete
  5. [[Please read section of my comment which was addressed to you, please do not to respond to the portion which was for other people.]]

    Vinay
    Not so clever are you.
    I am often talking to other people and you always butt into our conversation and address the points.
    In the past when I had told you not to butt in –you give me some lecture about everyone has the right to answer blah blah blah.
    Now that I have addressed some point which you addressed to others YOU DON’T LIKE IT.
    What a hypocrite you are.
    So here ends yet another futile conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,
      As usual once again you misinterpreted another comment of mine and took complete opposite meaning of what I actually meant. I have no problem with you replying to each and every question asked by anyone in this discussion...provided you at least try to answer the ones which are asked to you...so now go back and read your comments carefully and try to derive some sense from them. All effort, energy and space is wasted in them to show who is ignorant according to you, who is hypocrite or anti-Hindu or whatever as per your own logic. You are so busy is giving some label to others that you didn't even bother to answer any question asked by me. So normally a person who struggles to focus on things is advised not to juggle with many things at the same time, they are advised to focus on one thing at a time, that was the free advise from my side. It seems you didn't like it and continued the same line, that is trying to throw personal comments which have no relation with the topic of discussion. I repeated so many times that no one is interested here knowing who are you or how intelligent are you or others or how ignorant are others according to you (or anyone else)...If possible just stick to the topic of discussion and share your views in that regard, it will save lot of your as ell as others time. I already know that whoever doesn't agree with you is a hypocrite, ignorant, anti-Hindu or whatever label you want to give. I got this and I guess others also got this point. Now if possible move on and try to discuss the topic, share your thoughts on it. Thanks.

      Delete
  6. My dear hypocrite, ignorant, anti-Hindu friend,

    With Best Regards

    Anon :)

    ReplyDelete