Bal Thackeray or communal politics is not the issue here. It is the freedom of expression of individuals. The Chairman of Press Club of India had an article on The Hindu (a national daily) which painted Thackeray in a bad light (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-i-cant-pay-tribute...) - but the state won't act as recklessly against him as they have against these two.
Recent events in the country that sets the alarm bells ringing:
And now this - both the individual who made the post on FB and her friend who 'like'd it has been arrested. This abuse of power in a country with a lot more urgent problems to solve.
This very much seems to be a generation gap between people in positions of power (politicians, bureaucrats, police) who are not used to the internet and the way it gives voice to everyone.
I can only hope that as internet becomes ubiquitous across the country, people will realize the value of free speech and the need for an uncensored internet.
As fun as it is to think everyone thinks like americans...
Does India have and promote the ideal of "Freedom of Expression"? Or is this just the US peanut gallery giving their 2 cents on other peoples' culture?
When I was in India, I found it interesting that the Indian concept of Freedom of Religion (which they've had off and on for much much longer than the US) is actually equality of religion in the eyes of the state rather than separation of church and state. So, different religions have different laws that apply to them. That's a very alien concept to Americans.
Even Britain doesn't have a guarantee of freedom of speech like the US, particularly when it comes to hate speech.
The American lens is a foggy one, even excluding the fact that the rights we guarantee our citizens aren't necessarily the rights we grant citizens of other nations. It's a good thing to keep in mind.
But yes, India DOES promote the idea of freedom of expression and it's been a fundamental part of its culture for much longer than the United States has existed. Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen has a great book on the history of dissent in Indian history and how it's a cornerstone of India's culture and democracy: http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-...
Indian concept of religion is so much different than the west that it may come shock to you. And it doesn't stop at religion, culture has a very big part to play at it.
Coming to law, Religion plays a role in the law too! Because its the cheapest and fastest way to get justice compared to the traditional courts, where it may take years and your whole savings will be wiped out before you get a judgement. For example Muslims have some thing called as Personal Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Muslim_Personal_Law_B... , Which applies to many things like marriage and especially law dealing with personal issues.
With such a large country. And thousands of languages, cultures etc. Such diversity in nearly every walk of life be it clothing, food, festivals etc. You can never say/do anything signification without disappointing few people.
>>different religions have different laws that apply to them
That's incorrect and somewhat misleading. It's rather such as - certain parts of (minor subset) some civil laws or family laws come under respective personal laws based upon religion/tribe &c. Like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindi Code Bills, various succession acts &c.
Remaining (most) part is a uniform civil code. However, it can be noted that in case of criminal matters - AFAIK - Indian constitution doesn't discriminate, in any manner, at least on paper.
Politics - both religious and generic - is embedded to everything in India, even laws. There's a landmark Shah Bano case where Supreme Court of India overruled the verdict given by Muslims' holy book which was as interpreted by clerics which is often misleading as in any religions. The interesting part here was that the court was compelled to quote from their Holy book Quran in the verdict - an aayat (like some sort of support) - as it was a very sensitive matter.
There are clearly different laws that apply to different religious groups when it comes to polygamy and other, as you say, family or civil laws.
I wasn't trying to say that the entire legal system in India is bifurcated (multifurcated? =P) along religious lines. I was just pointing out that while the American legal system attempts to exclude religion from the law (to varying degrees of success), Indian tradition includes laws which take into account various religious traditions and customs.
It's just a different way of treating the issue of freedom of religion in the legal system.
Correct facts can be used to mislead.
Why I said misleading was not primarily because I thought or maybe assumed (as I am no legal expert myself) but because the way you made a sweeping statement which might have been either done knowingly or merely in the flow of writing that comment you included the line. Incorrect because it was actually incorrect and when I wrote the comment I didn't have Set Theory in mind.
I just wanted to clarify the scenarios where laws are intertwined with religion, tribes or caste. Regarding the last term caste I have not been able to find any instance but have read in articles that there are such provisions.
I would like to add that your mention of Polygamy in India needs few lines - it's not enforced in India until and unless you are someone famous where people take interest out of the celebrity nature and hence state intervenes or the case/issue has blown up. It's present even in religions other than Islam. It's 'sort of' legal in most of the tribes based on tradition (this term often comes up in all sorts of legal cases in this country and is given importance) and it's common in rural areas.
Even if India doesn't have a it, the question really is, shouldn't India have it. "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right?
In any case, its a fundamental right, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Its not really a part of the culture, even in highly educated circles. Part of that has to do with the Indian apathy towards Humanities and pursuit of pragmatism over ideology.
> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right?
It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history.
The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western) way of thinking is the 'right' way, and everyone else is 'wrong'.
Wikipedia lists "western" examples because western canon is very well documented, and this documentation is reliable and extensive enough to quote from.
My readings of Indian history have led me to accept that the freedom of thought and speech have existed, formally and legally, for at least a thousand years - particularly, read up on the times of Asoka's rule.
Does that pre-date the (ancient) greeks? Plato and Aristotle had a lot to say about 'freedom'. When I say 'Western' I mean them, given our whole way of thinking (philosophy) and problem solving (scientific method) was defined by them.
From my brief look, Hinduism and the Ancient greeks started talking about Freedom (and freedom of speech) at around the same time (~400BCE).
> I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western) way of thinking is the 'right' way, and everyone else is 'wrong'.
Yes, there are arguments in the Western canon, but when Milton argues for freedom of expression in the Areopagitica, or Mill in On Liberty, they don't argue that you should support free speech because you're a Westerner. They don't make any special appeals to anyone's cultural situation. They make arguments that have universal application.
When you employ reasoning to advocate a principle, it does not become a territorial principle. It becomes applicable pending counterargument from anyone.
The argument that reasoning itself is a uniquely Western idea quickly becomes self-defeating. Anyone asserting anything has volunteered to follow certain logical rules of coherency, which have been derived in the West through observation, not proscription.
Demanding that others be silent, while you alone can speak, tends towards absurdity regardless of the continent upon which you happen to stand.
I didn't saying anything of the sort. But you dismantled that straw man rather deftly! Well Done!
I was referring in particular to "Human Rights". There are a number of different ways to approach building a productive society. Human Rights are one approach, there are others. Both are rational.
The concept of natural human rights is, similar to some kinds of religious belief one of those belief systems that strongly implies people who disagree with it are wrong. Few people who believe in say... freedom of expression and modern democracy are going to accept that imprisoning or murdering one's political opponents is a cultural difference that should be respected, for example.
The first Amendment of Indian Constitution and American constitution talks about Freedom of Expression. However in American case it gives that right to individuals ensuring that state will never curtail it where as in case of India it puts "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of expression and right to property.
Another event that sets off alarm bell was sedition charge (one of the most abused laws) against cartoonist Aseem Trivedi.
Thankfully you can still have some faith in Indian judicial system. Full story here: http://goo.gl/evx4J
>> This very much seems to be a generation gap between people in positions of power (politicians, bureaucrats, police) who are not used to the internet and the way it gives voice to everyone.
Unfortunately, it is true and I fear we might have draconian laws to "regulate" Internet in India!
I shared this story on my fb account and got a veiled threat in 30 minutes. This is what I posted: "21 old year girl arrested for opposing Mumbai bandh on her Facebook status! 2000 Shiv Sainiks vandalize her Uncle's clinic. Another girl was arrested for liking the status! This is horrible. I blame all the people on facebook and in real world who patronize such violent and undemocratic forces. So much for free speech! The youth of this country are pushed down from all directions every day. Are we supposed to just sit and take it? Today it was Shiv Sena who did this, a fringe party. A few days ago it was Congress cabinet minister's son. What happens if every Political Party starts doing this? How long are we going to sleep? I never say this : Share !!". Note that this person was a well educated guy from my convent school. The extremism in my country is appalling.
Although this girl might be arrested today, this general trend (growing accessibility to information) will show more and more people that there is a world beyond their immediate experience and what they are being told by people like Bal is false. Bal Thackeray was a bigot. He sought and exploited communal tensions and it's a shame that one can't openly criticize such a reprehensible person. Furthermore, his party Shiv Sena "operates as a network of street gangs" and is holds ideology which isn't far from the Tea Party in America.
While Bal Thakare's politics might be irrelevant in todays times. Do not forget that he was the only voice common people had when Communists/Islamists ruled the streets and the Socialist Congress government ruled as helpless as ever.
When China invaded India, the communist party in India was calling nationwide protests "in support of china" and was running "fund raising drives". That was the first time Bal Thakare turned from a cartoonist to a mass leader.
The political party was truly formed when Islamists forced the central government to change Indian constitution to apply horrible Islamic Sharia law to ensure that a 60 year old lady divorced after 40 years of marriage will not get any alimony from her rich husband. Muslims across the mumbai would then celebrate their victory by blocking the traffic and holding Namaz on streets.
Bal Thakare seemed to be the only voice weaker sections of society had that time. Yes, like all other organizations even Shiv Sena was not perfect and many times local goons and mafias joined this party for their own gains but more or less this party remains much more faithful to common people than the other parties.
Police did not find that OK. Police just make people obey the law. And politicians write the laws. And back to politics again, so end of the story. Here you can just argue if such laws are OK or not, which will also end in a political debate anyway.
The chairman of Press Council of India and has written to the Chief Minister of the state of Mumbai (Maharashtra) to intervene and sort out this issue citing "freedom of speech" Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian constitution [0].
This should be upvoted more, as the "Chairman" is "Justice Markandey Katju" whose legal opinion in this matter is credible. Not only does he say that the arrests are against freedom of speech which is "a guaranteed fundamental right", he says that the arrests are criminal according to law too.
Quoting the full paragraph here -
""
In the letter addressed to Chavan, Justice Katju has written: "It is alleged that she has been arrested for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments. Under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, freedom of speech is a guaranteed fundamental right. We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime.
""
News emerging that the girls have been granted bail, an enquiry has been initiated. The local cops may also be in trouble for their action [0]. Good going!
SreenivasanJain: Both girls initially sent to judicial custody, then granted bail.
SreenivasanJain: Maharashtra police HQ has ordered enquiry into girls' arrest. Says will look into merits of charges.
SreenivasanJain: IG Konkan will head inquiry. Prima facie police HQ says no basis for arresting the girls. Say local cops jumped the gun.
A co-worker in Mumbai also made some controversial statements on Facebook. He's absolutely fine, but just about every one of his friends scolded him for being so brazen. I was out of the city for the weekend, but by all accounts it was a terrible place to be.
This news is not terribly surprising, though as many have said, likely not true. It is extremely indicative of the immense gap between India and more developed nations.
That's quite possible, the copy paste is quite obvious though I don't know for sure which way it went. I don't know who this tweet is from or his credibility so I'll just leave it up in the air for now.
It's still alarming that they were vandalized over a facebook post and the police is looking into possible criminal liability.
Also, the news reports talk specifically of what sections of law the girls were booked under. Doesn't sound so fake because of that.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that it was the girl who got booked under "Section 295 (a) of the IPC (for hurting religious sentiments)" - hate speech laws?
No girl's arrested. They just made up the story to stop negative online trend related to Bal Thackeray. His death made a lot of people to start a worthless debate on facebook and twitter.
> His death made a lot of people to start a worthless debate on facebook and twitter.
First, the girl is arrested and that's confirmed. Second, it is not for you & me to decide how people use their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts. You and I get no say in it - if they want to indulge in 'worthless debates' they should be allowed to. In addition, that should not be held against them in any sort of way.
Its sad that the freedom of speech for a individual has been erased by misuing the laws which were actually meant to provide justice. The arrest and the eventual ransacking of the victim's uncles clinic by the supporters of Balasahab Thackeray, may have very less to justify the act.
I wonder if they would even reflect upon the fact that would the supremo himself support such expressions and outbursts by his partymen and followers. No wonder the signs of the party cracking up are showing and i hope this case becomes a eye opener given that internet has got a wide reach and educates the young to chose the law makers more sensibly.
This is India, a country where rights exist only on paper. Rights materialize only where people have knowledge and power to defend them. Unfortunately India is a long way from there.
Indian English treats 'girl' as equal to 'woman' in most contexts. Likewise 'boy' == 'man'. as seen in marital partners ads '41 year old boy seeks 35 year old girl ... '
(fwiw I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Indian newspapers should use the local flavor, rather than trying to conform to (say) US English)
It's not about prescriptivism. It's questioning a rather bizarre word usage in English. If I called you a "frog" you might query why I were using such an odd term. So it goes here.
I hope this "Bal Thackeray" is happy now too: he caused two girls to be arrested. I hope he is happy too wherever he is now. What nice way to go out with the bang!
Bal Thackeray has nothing to do with religion, he was more like a far right politician. In India there is a huge celebrity cult (people get crazy about politicians / actors / sportsmen) and Bal T's followers / goons virtually own Mumbai.
I live in India and it is becoming a police state much like China, people have been arrested just for criticizing politicians on Twitter. Anything I say online can hurt anyone so I stand a risk of being arrested if I criticize even the local politician. Also, things will not improve only get worse. In other news, I am trying hard to get out of here and its not easy.
I .. I'm just ashamed of what's happening over here these days. Free speech appears to be an absolute illusion. It's all well and good until you say something even remotely related or critical of a popular personality. Then, it's jungle law.
Its not religion to blame here . Its the law . Here is the relevant section :
>>Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-
>>a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
>>b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
Well, nobody said that about all religions (e.g not for "virgin sacrificing daemon worship" -- though it does sound fun), and for all people practicing them. Christianity didn't make Torquemada any good, but it worked quite well for St. Aquinas.
With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest.
The guys that sued/prosecuted the girls did mention "hurting religious sentiments", but that was merely because that was the only semi-plausible accusation under law (since it was a funeral).
In actuality it was a political chase -- people thought they insulted their dear party leader.
(Oh, and it's not like the police arrested them for what they did. The police detained them temporarily just because they had to: that's the law when such an accusation is made, even for someone who didn't do anything).
> With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest.
He was also more of a national/ethnic leader than a religious one, with religion only serving as a convenient delineating factor for the "nation" he represented, and even then, only later in his career. He started out as a Marathi ethnic-nationalist, and then started adopting elements of Hindutva as a way of broadening his "brand" to non-Marathis.
But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law. Religion looks even worse in this case: they're a politican's bitch (psychology term) and they seem to be content with that.
>But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law.
Which is no argument at all. It's like saying, "if there weren't blacks, there would be no racism".
You can have restrictive laws based on everything, no need to single out religion. Sources of restrictive laws range from health (like the drug laws), to tolerance (no hate speech), to patriotism (too many to mention), to children (internet censorship etc).
Religion is a particulary nasty offender in the free speech department. And it's not like I don't blame internet censorships, "war on drugs" and stuff. I do. They have their times.
When you generalize like that you're being narrow minded as the people you're criticizing. Instead, like Feynman, you should take what's best from religion to improve yourself, and ignore the rest. History shows the average human being is stupid, so don't be average.
Ah! I see what bothers you. It's the lack of respect for free speech, it pisses me off too.
On one side we have these somewhat free states driven by a set of religious values. On the other side we have totalitarian atheists regimes driven by a set of sociological principles. And in the middle we find ourselves without acces to basic rights like free speech.
I frequently ask myself how could we solve that without hurting others rights.
The problem is, you also have states that are both totalitarian and religious.
So if you already have a totalitarian state (see Shah Iran) bringing in religion will make it worse, not better (the current mullah Iran).
Sadly, I don't see any good perspectives. In rich countries, the main voting power belongs to people of considerable age. And they don't use much freedoms therefore freedom is not a selling point for politicians; medical care and pensions are.
And in poorer countries you can always band together enough Red Guards to establish a totalitarian theocraty if you don't have one already.
It seems you value more the problems that religious extremists cause than the current blatant disregard to free speech. In that light you'd be better off moving to China.
Going against religion won't do any good to protect free speech or any other human right. You'll only gather more enemies.
What you fail to acknowledge is that by going against someone over any disagrement you're hurting not only civility, but you transform yourself into the very thing you're fighting against.
Hell no! Fight them back with better ideas, respect, and equality. But first of all, you have to understand what you're up against, study what they say, find cracks in their logic, and show that you're both on the same side. It's all a matter of perspective.
You respect them and then they lynch you. When a tolerant culture meets untolerant culture, the former usually backs off even if it's more advanced. Take France as example.
I think we should not be tolerant to people who violate basic human rights. They either behave or we should find a way to catapult them away.
It depends. I would say that religions give a lot of people a meaningful life by providing values, hope and guidance on what they should aspire to. But there are always those on the extreme fringes, who make the rest look bad.
That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism.
The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on one hand), and some religions like Mormonism and Scientology also provide them, but apparently forbid leaving them (read about excommunicating in either) to the point that I find unacceptable in a society.
Disregarding the obstacle of definition of religion vs. e.g. cult vs. value system[1], my opinion would be, based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states (like Sweden and Norway), would be that value provided by religion is a net negative.
[1] if you insist, I will say that beleief X is a religion iff there's a government of a country with >10M residents that accepts it as a religion for the purpose of its law. Specific definition is immaterial - they will all coincide for 99% of the population, and will have essentially no effect in the grand scheme of things.
> based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states
Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
> I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious
I am not aware of this consensus, but it is entirely unrelated to my claim: The supposed benefits of religion are nil, because comparable countries that essentially eschew religion fare at least as well, and usually way better than those that do not.
I did not make any claim about the relation between stability and religion. Swedes and Norwegians, as nations, are the best educated, best nourished, among the healthiest, with virtually no crime compared to e.g. the US or Italy. What exactly are the positive benefits that you get from religion that you do not get without?
It is related to your claim, because it provides an alternative explanation.
Observation: Various measures of societal health are correlated with lack of religion.
Explanation #1: Religion is bad for society.
Explanation #2: Bad society is good for religion.
Both explanations are at least somewhat plausible (religion is bad for society because believing falsehoods is morally corrosive, or because religions are full of ideas founded in old moral systems that we no longer endorse, or whatever; societal ill-health is good for religion because people in difficult situations will turn to anything that seems to offer comfort, or because when things are really hard the gods really do help, or whatever). In particular, the plausibility of explanation #2 means you can't just leap from the observation to explanation #1.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming any particular benefits for religion. I'm an uncompromising atheist myself. I just don't like plausible but unsound arguments, and "The Scandinavian countries are great places and also very irreligious, therefore religion isn't good for you" is, I think, a plausible but unsound argument: it could equally be that their irreligiousness is an effect, not a cause, of their education, good health, low crime, etc.
(On the other hand, "The Scandinavian countries are great places and also very irreligious, therefore religion isn't vital for a healthy society as some religious people claim it is" is a perfectly good argument, and one I've used myself.)
[EDITED to add, on the subject of that putative consensus: see e.g. http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html, a single article but one written by two of the biggest names in the field, Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman. "To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions [...] Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. [...] Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US." I should perhaps emphasize that GP and PZ here are talking about the origins of large-scale popular religiosity; individuals' decisions are, well, more individual and it certainly isn't true that all religious people are that way because their messed-up societies make them look for supernatural aid.]
Thanks for a long and detailed response. Really appreciated.
But I want to reiterate, that I only ever claimed "sum (religion benefits) <= 0", which I believe is equivalent to your statement that "religion isn't vital" (or rather, "religion isn't helpful"). At no way did I imply any other cause and effect relation other than the one implicit in this statement.
But do religion make less stable societies better or worse?
Does it help them climb out of poverty or does it only help them reassure themself the world is exactly right, their poor lives are okay, and everyone smarter than them should be stoned to death?
It seems to me that religions that prey on unstable, unsecure societies are especially nasty these days. Evolved to conquer poor societies and keep them that way!
There is nothing that religion provides that cannot be and is not already provided by secular society[1]. Religion is an antiquated notion that serves no purpose in modern society.
It seems faith should be like a prescription drug: it should be practiced by people who need it. But instead it's like illegal drug, which is used by all kinds of people and it hurts a sizable chunk of them: and also makes their relatives' lives tougher.
Religion is like almost anything, it's serves a valuable purpose for a huge number of people but there are some that abuse it. The world is a messed up place for a large amount of people, if the idea that there's a higher being that they're doing this for and that idea is what they need to keep going where's the problem?
I guess ultimately the world would be better without religion if you only consider the negatives, but if the world is better without religion then it's also better without alcohol, drugs, cars, love, internet, business...
Religion today serves no purpose, really. It did at one point, but it doesn't now. As societal animals we've moved beyond the need for religion. Additionally, religion by and large is a (huge) net negative on society. Couple that with the fact that, for instance, internet, business, love do orders of magnitude more good than the rather minor harm and you can't equate religion to the others (perhaps, alcohol and drugs, but even those have more positive benefits than religion).
It's a meaningless question. How would a world without religion come about? By flipping a switch, and everybody becomes well educated, peace loving, hyper-rational atheists? In that case, probably yeah, it'd be better. On the other hand, if you start lopping the heads of anyone found to be taking guidance from any teaching that isn't solidly grounded in hard science, then, no, it certainly won't be better.
That's right because all religious people are poorly educated war loving and irrational.
Seriously... Do you forget what was responsible for spreading education so rapidly around the world (give you a hint, it wasn't atheists).
There are a number of religions that are founded in rationality, and large components of others that are pure rationality. Just because you don't believe in (a) G/god doesn't mean you aren't religious. Just because you believe in a G/god doesn't mean you are irrational.
Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that cannot be proven. Hence, belief in religion is by definition irrational.
Now, if you are saying 'religion' to mean 'societal construct' or something like that, well, that is a different ballgame. Though I don't think you mean that, so the above applies.
Bottom line, the major religions of the world demand someone to suspend rationality to believe. Otherwise the followers would not be followers.
And as for educated. Perhaps there isn't a conclusive study on the subject, but it is safe to say that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious, particularly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
No, nobody is an atheist when they're born. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the existence of god. Agnostic, more likely.
Yes, religion is by definition irrational. Humans generally aren't very rational beings. Love is irrational, it makes us do irrational things, but I'm sure we can agree, on the balance, love is a good thing. Thus dismissing religion on irrationality grounds is not very meaningful.
I also didn't say we should dismiss religion because it is irrational, I said people who were religious were irrational. I believe that still stands.
If anyone asked, I would say we should dismiss religion because it is harmful. Harmful to our stability, harmful to our advancement, harmful to the people that follow it and harmful to the people stuck in it against their will (either country, family or society). Today the negatives of religion far outweigh any good it can do. There was a time and place for religion, but we have outgrown it.
Most of the negatives you mention are perhaps styled in the language of religion, but they're underpinned by deeper causes.
The Middle East isn't solely a religious conflict, it's very much an ethnic one as well. Oppressive countries are oppressive, they're not liberal countries that just happened to read in a book that they should kill and maim those that worship in the wrong way. Closely knit groups (families, societies) are going to sanction deviators regardless of religion.
I disagree with both. We are born atheists, but we can create our own god(s) even without the influence of others. How else would religions come to existence?
It might even be an evolutionary trait or something. Having bigger brains, larger set of emotions etc, we needed something to protect us from the sensation of a meaningless life, injustice, the concept of death, the ending of our consciousness, etc.
A number of buddhist sects/schools hold no belief in any god... It is a religion, they are not irrational. It is a major religion.
> And as for educated. Perhaps there isn't a conclusive study on the subject, but it is safe to say that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious, particularly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Correlation or causation? I don't really have time to read through all the studies, but St Thomas Aquinas is a good counter example of that premise, very analytical, very religious...
I meant that sentence to make good atheists distinct from bad ones (such as various brands of communists). In general, I agree with you. It's incredibly hard to separate out religion from history - almost everything that happened in the world up until about 100 years ago was driven by religious people, and that's the core of my objection that it's a meaningless question. If there never was any religion, you'd have to rewrite literally the entire history of the world and you can't flippantly claim that the outcome would be overall better.
Almost every person in the world up until about 100 years ago had lice and other parasites.
Should we now declare that, given that Newton, Galileo and Socrates likely had lice (the blood-sucking kind) for some part of their lives, we should consider lice a vital part of our cultural heritage and that any modern scientist should get some?
Recent events in the country that sets the alarm bells ringing:
- Kapil Sibal (minister of communication) doesn't understand the internet. He wants active censorship of online media - http://www.labnol.org/india/censorship-in-india/20527/.
- An individual was arrested from his home at 5am due to a tweet he made alleging the son of an Indian minister was corrupt. He had 16 followers. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iac-volunteer-tweets-h...
And now this - both the individual who made the post on FB and her friend who 'like'd it has been arrested. This abuse of power in a country with a lot more urgent problems to solve.
This very much seems to be a generation gap between people in positions of power (politicians, bureaucrats, police) who are not used to the internet and the way it gives voice to everyone.
I can only hope that as internet becomes ubiquitous across the country, people will realize the value of free speech and the need for an uncensored internet.