Victims of India's VIP culture

I read the news about the detention of Uttar Pradesh (UP) minister Mr. Azam Khan at Boston International Airport. The news was followed by usual reactions from various quarters of India. The minister felt that he was victimized because of his religion (because he is Muslim). He could even see some kind of conspiracy behind this incident (actually this is a pathetic attempt to get some political mileage out of this trivial incident). This is not the first time this type of incident happened or such news appeared in the Indian news media. There was a similar reaction when Shahrukh Khan was detained for some questioning during his visit to Yale last year. One this is common in both these incidents, the detained person claimed that they were questioned because of their religion. However, this is far from the actual truth. These people are the VIPs (very important persons) or I must say VVIPs in India and are used to getting royal or exceptional treatment everywhere in India and by 'everywhere' I really mean "EVERYWHERE." At airports, hospitals, police stations, courts, on roads, and anywhere they go they are not used to standing in line, waiting for their turn, or getting questioned. Going through any of these ordeals that common people go through every day is a huge insult for them. As they are the VIPs in India not only do they expect the whole of India to know about their status and power but also expect the rest of the world to do the same. Some of these creatures are pathetic examples of people living in a bubble where everything revolves around them, they and their egos are supreme, and the rest is secondary.

Every day hundreds of people are detained for security reasons and are questioned at airports all over the world. This has become a normal procedure after the attacks of 9/11. The procedure follows certain protocols and in one way is very necessary for that country's security. Because of current international conflicts and also political and social situations, many countries face continuous threats of terrorist attacks. These countries need a very robust and reliable system to maintain their safety with minimum inconvenience to people (their citizens as well as visitors). As I said many of these so-called VIP people get very preferential treatment in India, they are not used to being treated like common people anywhere in India. Due to this many of them start thinking that they deserve this special treatment everywhere they go. When Shahrukh was detained last year that time it was also revealed that before him many eminent personalities like former president Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and defense minister George Fernandes were also detained for similar reasons in the past but none of them created any issue about this. They understood that this was a part of normal security proceedings of the country they were visiting but these other VIPs thought it was only because of their religion they were questioned. I don't think that they even tried to understand how this system works and what is wrong in going through this procedure. Every day many people face this situation. They all go through a little inconvenience and feel some irritation but all these procedures are in place to prevent some big disasters like 9/11 from happening again and I don't think any sensible human being wants these incidents to happen again anywhere in the world.

These people who make such a big fuss about some very regular safety procedures are actually the biggest beneficiaries of these procedures. They get VIP treatment in India. Almost everywhere, roads are blocked causing inconvenience to the common public for hours when some of these people travel by road. Sometimes they delay trains or even flights by forcing them to wait so that these special people can board them at their own convenience. They even get preferential treatment in hospitals. All this makes everyone around them including their relatives believe that they are more important than others. This all creates a big bubble around these people and many of them feel very comfortable in that bubble. They start living in that bubble and slowly start feeling that this is how the world works. Whenever I read this type of news along with anger I feel sympathy for these creatures who can not digest the fact that they can also be treated like common people. 

As far as the question of religion is concerned this is a pathetic attempt to dig for something which doesn't exist. Because of the current international political situation and the presence of so many terrorist organizations pledging their association with Islam and recruiting youths from that religion heavily it is quite possible that terrorist databases must be flooded with many names belonging to Muslim origin and whether anyone likes it or not this is a fact. This is not related to how good or bad Islam is as a religion but totally because of the current state of affairs in the world around us. I am sure these VIPs know very well about this and if they don't then they should educate themselves with some of these simple facts. 

Actually, in my opinion, many of these VIPs should be thankful to all common people in India (who are the actual victims of this ugly VIP culture) just for the fact that they don't complain about all the inconveniences they have to face because of preferential treatment offered to VIPs. Common people have to wait endlessly on roads, in trains, and even sometimes outside hospitals because of this VIP culture. These VIPs should feel little shame to complain about inconveniences which they sometimes face which common people face every day in their lives. We need to abandon this VIP culture so that these pampered beneficiaries of VIP culture learn to live life like common people and won't feel victimized or discriminated against just because they were treated like common people. They need to be exposed to reality which they conveniently choose to forget.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Related Links:
1. News about Mr. Azam Khan's detention
2. Azam Khan claiming conspiracy behind his detention

Justice is delivered?

I heard this line so many times while I was following the news related to the hunt and arrest of Boston bombing suspects. Finally, the police department successfully arrested one of the suspects and the other one died during the encounter with police. The news channels said that as both the suspects were either arrested or killed justice was delivered and all those who suffered or got affected by this bomb blast must feel satisfied. A simple and straightforward definition of justice, get an eye for an eye and be happy, feel safe.

But is it that simple? Will this stop any further attacks like this? Do we know why those two people acted like this? Is our definition of justice so subjective? Do we adopt different standards with different countries or people? Many questions like this come to my mind when I hear this line "Justice is delivered." I was really horrified to see some people celebrating with joy when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened in the USA. Those people were celebrating with the same feeling that justice is delivered. Were they correct in their assessment? Whenever any terrorist activity happens in the USA it gets covered all over the world, print and electronic media coverage is very aggressive. People from many parts of the world want to know what happened, how it happened, and who did it? Curiosity about these things is huge. One reason for this curiosity is that the US has such a strong system to track culprits and has the best-equipped security forces in the world so to breach this system is not that easy, that's why people want to know who did it. Another reason is that the US has its interests involved in so many countries and regions that there are many who feel that the US is somehow directly or indirectly responsible for their hardships and problems and they watch these incidents with the feeling "Now they must know what we feel and experience every day because of them." These things create a very complex relationship between the US and the rest of the world (especially people from developing and third-world countries). So in today's world, the term justice might be interpreted totally differently for the same incident in different parts of the world.

Any bomb blast or terrorist attack anywhere in the world is a tragic event. Many innocent people die for no fault of theirs, and it creates a lot of anger and restlessness among the people of that region. Victims want answers, they want revenge, and they also want justice. Whenever the culprits behind these attacks (mentally sick or religious fanatics, extremists, etc.) get arrested or killed then people feel that justice is delivered, which actually is a sort of revenge, not the actual justice but something that looks and feels like justice. No doubt these culprits need to be punished. They need to face trial and proper punishment should be awarded to them. However, if we ignore the reasons behind the crime then it's just a matter of time before the next incident occurs. The names and places might change but it will keep on happening because we only treated the symptom but not the actual cause of the disease. Most countries have functioning judiciary and offer very severe punishment for acts of terrorism or gruesome violence but still, these things keep on happening on a regular basis. So, one thing is clear, these criminals are not afraid of that punishment, there is something that overrides their fear of punishment and we need to tackle that 'something' to stop or minimize these incidents.

Radicalization of society based on religious beliefs and the propagating use of violence for the sake of protecting religion is one of the major causes of these terrorist activities. We need to confront these types of narratives. They all start as some benign movement or some conservative groups that claim to protect sacredness or the original form of that particular religion which they think our modern civilization or the developing world is trying to destroy and slowly these movements become radical, sectarian, and violent. They particularly target youths, because it's easy to misguide them and incite them for violence. We need to stop this. All religions are guilty of this crime, they all used this tactic sometime or other in history. Just punishing culprits of such heinous crimes is only a part of the solution. We need to go beyond that and attack the root of the problem otherwise it will keep on resurfacing in some form or other. We need to change the way society looks at religion, sexual orientation, and gender discrimination and educate all so that we understand each other's choices and differences and learn to respect them and live with them. We need a more tolerant and flexible belief system that makes society more inclusive and peaceful. The justice system needs to be uniform so people won't feel cheated and discriminated against. These things are not easy to bring into practice but we must try otherwise we will find ourselves mourning for many more tragic incidents like this and each time wondering what went wrong. 

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Why is science considered as a force against religion?

Many people (especially orthodox religious or so-called conservatives) think that science is the "force against religion." They offer very strong arguments to support this hypothesis. One can ask what is science after all? Is it something that we humans invented or something that existed all the time we just discovered it and named it recently as science? Basically, science consists of the stuff that people have found out about things around us. People use this knowledge to figure out unknown things and also to create or design things that can make our lives more comfortable. In very simple terms science is just people finding out what the stuff is and how things around us work. This logic can be applied anywhere not just for traditional science subjects like chemistry, physics, biology, and maths. Any rational or logical analysis and reasoning is science. This is how I define it, for me science doesn't just mean to study a few subjects. 

The reason why some people think that science is bad for religion is because science has allowed people to figure out things on their own that people didn't know back when many of these religious or holy books were written. A very simple example of this is where rainbows come from? The Bible answered that it was from god; he created rainbows after the great flood to show that he wouldn't create another worldwide extermination. For people back then, it answered why there were rainbows, it was a very simple explanation and went very well with the story in the book. It satisfied their curiosity, but eventually, people who were not content with that answer looked into it and found that a rainbow is just the light reflecting from the water in clouds (this is the simplest way to describe it). We now know that rainbows have been like this since the beginning of the earth, and that's just how light works, it's the property of light we just didn't know about it back then. I am giving this particular example just to show that people took the explanation from the Bible as the truth because rainbows seemed so magical and they wanted some answer. But back then they didn't know, there was no way to understand this phenomenon because they didn't have the knowledge or techniques to study the behavior of light. Hence it was impossible to understand how rainbows were formed. When they heard stories of God and one of the stories said that the rainbows were from god, an all-powerful being, creator of the universe, it was easy for them to accept that he created everything including the rainbow. If it were me hearing this for the first time, I would have believed it, because something so beautiful and grand as a rainbow must come from something beyond this world. Back then many mystical things, for example, sunrise and sunset, solar eclipses, floods, earthquakes, and various epidemics, required some sort of explanation, and the concept of 'God' and its ultimate powers gave a very believable explanation for all these mysteries. The Bible is just one of the texts that gives such explanations there are many books from many religions that offer similar explanations and stories.   

People then believed that this person named 'God' must be real and he must be the power behind causing the things that people don't have control over or can't explain. The human mind is very curious, and these simple answers satisfied the curiosity of a lot of people but not all of them were happy with these answers. Some of these people started to look into these things. A few thousand years later, and after many experiments, they discovered that rainbows are a lot simpler than we thought, one can even create their own rainbow on any bright day or under lights with a simple water hose or fountain. So, people figured out where rainbows come from and this is what science is, a simple rational, and logical way of figuring out things. It is not a rule book or something to live by. It's not a lifestyle. It is just a way of thinking. People also figured out that the earth is not stationary but it moves around Sun and that's why we experience sunrise and sunset. Eventually, many other natural wonders were also demystified. But the problem was these discoveries contradicted the things mentioned in some scriptures which attained the status of holy scriptures revealing the absolute truth. This is how this conflict started, science vs religion.

Science doesn't claim to deliver absolute truth. Everything in science is tentative and open for debate. According to science, there is no way to prove anything absolutely, one can question everything no matter whose theory it is and how old it is. The beauty of science is if you want to disprove anything in science, you would be using science to do it and the whole scientific community will welcome any new discoveries or theories. But the current form of any religion doesn't allow this. Some questioning and probing are allowed, but religion demands faith and total surrender beyond a certain point. Many people are okay with this and feel happy about it. Nothing wrong with it as long as it works for them and helps these people with their personal problems and they coexist peacefully with others. But when they create division in society, stereotype people based on their beliefs, and preach hatred, there is a problem. It surely is a matter of concern when people start killing each other because of differences in their religious beliefs. Anyone who questions any religious belief is branded as an atheist and is subjected to a lot of criticism and hate. I already shared some of my views regarding this topic in my post about science and religion where I discussed how both these things can complement each other but unfortunately, it is not possible because of the rigid attitude of people from both fields. Science doesn't run away from any question, but sadly same can not be said about religion and that is why people think science is a force against religion. However, in reality, science is not a force against anything, it's a very simple thing that helps us to figure out the stuff. Religion would have benefited immensely from science if it had embraced many discoveries that cleared many doubts and explained many natural phenomena (the same thing that religion tried to do in the beginning). Rather than accepting these facts, it took a stand of rejecting them and insisting that whatever is written in their holy books is the absolute truth and this created a rift that is widening day by day.

I mentioned in my previous post also that I don't think science and religion are a force against each other, both can be complementary to each other if people want. However, if I have to choose only one I will definitely choose science because it's more logical, rational, and not dictatorial.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Reference:
1. http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/10q3qq/so_many_things_online_convincing_me_that_my/
2. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-and-religion.html

This is how you teach kids rape culture

I read this news article and was thinking really this is what we want to teach our kids? I see news articles about jeans bans, skirt bans, or some other bans (even burka or veil bans) in many schools and colleges. All over the world, this trend is on the rise, especially in so-called conservative or traditional societies and cultures. These bans are for female clothing and behavior compared to male clothing. So, there is also the issue of gender discrimination here. But the issue of gender discrimination is not the whole point here, the issue is what type of message we are trying to give to our kids? Do we want to tell them that women are responsible for (or they control) men's behavior? Do we want to tell women and girls that if these so-called men get "distracted" by their dress and do something inappropriate it's their fault as they were not dressed "properly"? Do these people who are so enthusiastic to implement these dress codes know the consequences of this practice?

Putting restrictions on women (about their dressing, behavior, etc.) or on any section of society by the dominant class is not a new phenomenon. It happened many times in human history and sadly it's still happening. This is how one group or gender tries to maintain its hold on another group or gender. We need to stop this as this is not a sign of a healthy society where everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. People who defend these dress codes and want to control the freedom of women defend their actions by saying that certain types of dresses and behaviors provoke men's feelings and force them to commit a mistake or crime. So, the offenders are painted as poor victims and surprisingly blame is entirely placed on the real victim in such cases. Strange but this is how these people think. This also gives an impression to all men and young boys that it's okay to lose control under certain cases where women violate boundaries set for them by their society or religion. It's not wrong to violate their rights or attack their bodies just because they didn't follow these rules. Most of these rules are heavily biased and targeted towards controlling women's behavior. This is terrible and I wonder how people can recommend something as primitive as this? 

Sexual harassment is a very serious issue and we need to take it very seriously. Blaming females for crimes committed against them is not going to help at all. We also need to educate males on how to control their emotions and behave with the opposite gender. This has to be part of their education. Nothing should be taken for granted just because of the external appearance of someone, be it a man or woman. I think we as a society are civilized enough to understand that we should not judge anyone based on their gender, race, nationality, or external appearance. As humans, we need to respect other human beings and this means respecting their freedom, choices, and other aspects of their identity. I agree that we are also animals inhabiting this planet like other animal species but there is a huge difference between us and other animals and we should always remember this before justifying some cruel animal-like behavior. Always putting the blame on the victim for the way she was dressed (or saying she was too drunk, walking alone, etc.) not only shows how insecure our society is for women but also shows our inability to search for real reasons for this problem. By putting the blame for these types of incidents on the victim people are indirectly encouraging or protecting the offender which is not going to stop these incidents.  These types of comments convey an indirect message to all males that it's not their fault if they misbehave or lose control of their emotions under certain circumstances, this is what I mean by teaching rape culture and we need to stop this.

We need to educate both men and women about their rights and responsibilities. Teaching only one gender about their rights and putting the whole burden of responsibility and morality on the other gender is not a solution as it creates a very unbalanced society. It might have worked in the past when the structure of society was totally different from today, but this is not the solution for today's society. We need to change this attitude no matter how difficult it is. Don't teach girls not to get raped, teach boys not to rape. Both genders are part of this problem so both of them should be equally involved in creating the solution otherwise it won't work. There is no weaker or stronger sex here, both are equal and should be treated like that. When most people understand this then only we can dream of a safer world for women, till then we need to work to educate people around us. Just making laws and punishing a few criminals won't solve this problem.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Reference:
1. http://feministing.com/2013/04/10/this-is-how-you-teach-rape-culture-to-12-year-olds/

We need to redefine the concepts of Manhood and Womanhood

Recently I heard a very interesting talk on TED which was shared by one of my Facebook friends. The talk was by Colin Stokes and it was about how movies teach manhood? I loved the talk for so many reasons, one of them was the way he explained in very simple terms how opinions and thinking of kids (both boys and girls) are shaped by watching these movies. Most of these movies (including many classics like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.) project women as helpless characters who can't even fight simple injustice done to them and are always waiting for some prince Charming to rescue them. In all these stories finally the Prince Charming comes, performs all the heroic acts, rescues the poor princess, gets his reward, and then both live together happily ever after. A nice and simple storyline for almost every romantic movie of our era, only a few things change here and there. The names of characters may change but the central storyline is the same (even today). In most children's movies or even love stories, a woman is projected as a "trophy." Something man has to win by rescuing her from trouble. Most female characters cannot come out of difficulties on their own, they always need to be rescued.

The beauty of all these movies is that they are so well made that we don't see anything wrong with them. They are classics. I agree that they are just for the purpose of entertainment and one should look for anything else in them. However, is it as simple as this? Directly or indirectly don't these movies shape our thinking also? Do these movies teach the wrong concept of manhood and womanhood to us and our kids? I think they do. This is the message Colin Stokes wants to give us from his talk. Honestly, I never thought about this issue (the impact of these types of movies on our thinking) but after listening to this talk I thought about this and found how correct he is about his assessment. I love many of these movies, watched them many times, and read most of these stories in my childhood. My kids also love many of them and when I look back I clearly see that many of these movies consciously or unconsciously shape our thinking.  They can stereotype a particular gender or class in our society. Boys can start looking at girls as their "victory trophies," something that they have to win. Girls start dreaming about some prince charming who can rescue them. I know that all this sounds a little too exaggerated and over the top but there is an element of truth in this TED talk. I highly recommend it. 

Another example of this that I see today is many taunts and poor jokes purposely targeted toward gay people in many Hindi movies. These jokes are many times totally unnecessary and are in bad taste but it seems no one is bothered about these things. It seems people don't find anything wrong in poking fun at gays for no reason. Targeting that community and making them objects of ridicule is considered comic. Superficially it looks very harmless and just for entertainment which should not be taken too seriously but any such comment on any other sensitive issue is not taken in the same spirit. A couple of jokes here and there are fine but when only a particular gender or group is targeted continuously and consistently then definitely there is some problem and we need to address it. Movies are a very strong medium they affect many people and in some way, they also reflect our society's mindset. 

Movie making is a business and they try to sell what people want to buy. A lot of money is at stake and they need to make a profit, actually, a lot of profit. We can not expect the film industry to reform society but at least we can play our part and try to nullify any negative effects produced by some of these movies. After all, we all know that some things are not as harmless as they look. Already we can see the effect of these types of stories and movies on our own minds and our society. I am not saying to discard all these movies or to dump these stories. We should tell them with a clear "disclaimer" that these are products of pure fiction, they are gender biased, and don't have any relationship with real life. We also need to tell some stories with powerful female characters so that children don't get some stereotyped one-sided impression about their gender roles. It's not only our responsibility but it is the need of our society. Let's try to redefine manhood and womanhood. Let's give these terms some balanced meaning.  

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

References:

1. http://www.ted.com/talks/colin_stokes_how_movies_teach_manhood.html

What is anasakti (अनासक्ति)?

I came across the word 'anasakti' (अनासक्ति) many times while reading translations of the Bhagavad Gita or commentaries about it. One can find mention of this word while reading stuff about Hindu religion or Indian mythology. This term has been used in many ways to describe detachment or non-attachment from worldly pleasures or bonds. Generally, most people misunderstand it as an "aversion" but according to me, it's not aversion even though it's very similar to it. Actually, aversion is also one form of attachment, it's a negative attachment. Someone is attached to wealth and another person is attached to renunciation of wealth, both are strongly attached with some feeling (either affirmative or negative towards the same thing). One is running towards wealth and the other one is running away but both are running, they are performing the same action but in opposite directions. We can call one as a positive attachment (running towards something) and the other a negative attachment (running away from something) but both are sort of attachments according to me.

That's why I think "Anasakti" or non-attachment is a totally different stage than aversion. It's neither an attachment nor an aversion. I think it is the stage where you don't get affected by attachment or aversion (love or hate). Where you act as a mere spectator no matter what is the situation. Wealth or no wealth person behaves the same, he/she is neither addicted to a thing nor hates it. For example, no matter what food they get they enjoy it. Wearing saffron clothes, leaving all worldly pleasures, or abandoning home doesn't make a person unattached but he/she gets too attached to the feeling of rejecting everything. 'Sakti' (सक्ति) means compulsion, something one is forced to do or follow, like the rule of law or some dictator's commands. There is no choice in Sakti, one has to follow it whether one likes it or not. Anasakti means non-compulsion, the life of a free bird, life without any compulsion. It sounds really simple and one may argue that it's easier to live a life without any compulsion (where one can do whatever he/she wants) than a life of compulsion. However, life without compulsion doesn't mean life without any control or a wayward life. It means life without any desires, without any feeling of hate or love. Hate and love are the two most dominant feelings that control our lives. All our feelings or actions are the result of either one of these two or a mixture of both these feelings in different proportions.

The meaning of 'anasakti' sounds very simple but I think it's very difficult to practice. It's not easy to detach ourselves from everything (whether we love or hate those things). We can see that even people who claim to be detached from worldly pleasures and declare themselves gurus or sanyasis are strongly attached to their own God, beliefs, and habits like food. They are so attached to these things that they almost repel all other things and then feel happy about it. This so-called detachment of many people is very superficial and is just for show. In a real sense, everyone is attached to something no one is completely detached from everything. Getting attached to something comes very naturally to humans. We are born that way that's why we need to make a lot of effort to detach ourselves from anything. Let it be anything, living or nonliving, tangible or intangible, for example, our own ego or anything that we love or hate. Aversion is comparatively easy, it's easy to reject things that one doesn't like. Attachment is also easy and natural. But to detach completely from something without any emotion (love or hate) is not that easy. However, if we can do it, then nothing like that. Total detachment or non-attachment has the potential to make our every act selfless and enjoyable. We can act without any expectation or frustration. I know that it's not possible to do it for everything but we can try to do it whenever we can and slowly learn to practice it. I personally feel very happy whenever I can act like this. Feeling love is very beautiful and one of the most essential parts of being a human but sometimes it can also create a problem. Anger and hate are not good emotions for us or our society. It will be great if occasionally we can make ourselves free of all these feelings and act like a free spirit. 

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Why more and more people are moving away from religion?

Recently, when one of my friends forwarded me statistics about religion in the USA I was surprised to see that almost ~16% of people don't like to affiliate themselves with any religion. After ruling people's minds for centuries I think slowly religion is losing its grip on people. At least the trend in the USA points in that direction. It's not surprising, but one wonders what can be the reasons behind this shift? Organized religion is at its best nowadays as far as aggressiveness is concerned. Money is not a problem for them. All these organizations are very rich and powerful and their network is huge. They have a large dedicated workforce, and all resources are at their disposal to propagate their views (including TV, the internet, or any other modern tools of social or personal communication). So, technically they have all the physical requirements that are necessary to become a successful enterprise. Even after all this, their share is on the decline. However, even now with all this decline religion is the major force that divides or unites groups. It polarizes people's opinions as most people still like to associate themselves with some religion. All organized religions ruled this world unconditionally until progress in science and technology started helping people to figure out things on their own and the dependence on religion started reducing. I don't think the fierce competition between different religions, violent conflicts between them, the conservative nature of these organizations, and their unwillingness to change are the only reasons for this decline. These things have been there since religion started but its growth was not affected because of these factors.

Religion is a product of the intelligent human brain. There was a time in our civilization when there was a lot of confusion and a lot of questions about things happening around people. There was not a single force that could unite people of that time. There were no proper tools to find any answers to their questions and at that time organized religion and the concept of God came to their help. It provided them with believable answers based on the existing knowledge of that time and everything was attributed to God and its powers. Either with aggressive marketing or the use of force, everything was settled, people were content, and most of their doubts were either cleared or suppressed. To keep its hold on the masses slowly religion got converted into an organized institute with rigid rules and requirements. It also became big, very big so these rules were necessary to run the organization smoothly. But at the same time, there were always skeptics and nonbelievers who thought differently or didn't believe in all these explanations offered by religion and its books. Some of them developed their own philosophies which slowly developed in other religions. Some challenged the concept of religion and God itself. Some of them survived but mostly they perished or got executed. 

This whole process continued for many centuries. One after another many religions came, and with that came fierce competition and a tough race to recruit more subjects. Once they got recruits then they needed to retain them and this started a conflict between different religions. They were fighting for the same lands and people. The competition became tough and conflicts became serious. So serious that many times it resulted in mass killings and riots. Just because of differences in their beliefs people killed each other, wiped out civilizations. This exposed the ugly and cruel side of religion. Groups of people who claimed that their religion and God taught them love, peace, and compassion started killing others just because others didn't believe in the same source who delivered this message. But still, this didn't reduce the popularity of religion because the hold of religion was very strong. People needed something to identify themselves. They needed some common identity to feel part of a group and society. Because of the emergence of many religions, people got divided depending on which religion they follow. This conflict is still going on where there is a continuous struggle between different religions to expand their base and this is what we see around us today. 

At the same time, the rise of science and technology caused a major dent in the belief system of all religions. It helped people to find reasons and logic behind many things that were supposed to be divine. Initially, organized religion tried to stop this from happening but the evidence was too overwhelming to suppress. This slowly started to bust the bubble of false beliefs created by religion to some extent. Then there was an explosion of knowledge due to the revolution in communication techniques. Ultimately, at the end of the twentieth century, this revolution virtually brought the whole world together. Atheists, skeptics, and nonbelievers formed their own societies. In the modern world, it was not that easy to prosecute them or eliminate them. Slowly they also started sharing their own doubts, own ideas and there was an audience for them. Many of their questions sounded very logical, their concerns and doubts sounded very rational and they all demonstrated one thing very clearly, one doesn't need any religion to be a good human being. I think the result of all this is that 16% of people don't want to associate themselves with any religion. They have their own set of ideas and are fine without any particular belief system. One can see that this trend is all over the world. Unless organized religion and its gatekeepers recognize this trend and mend their ways this trend will continue. It's a very small dent right now but I am sure they must be concerned about it getting big and if they don't change anything I am sure it is going to get big. More and more people will move away from religion. To counter this trend I think they will either become more aggressive in preaching (the most possible action according to me based on the history of organized religion) or they will try to adjust to the changing environment of today's world (which is very unlikely to happen). It will be interesting to see which direction organized religion takes.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Reference:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
2. http://www.examiner.com/article/rise-of-the-nones-us-religious-affiliation-at-lowest-point-ever