Kashmir Protests - The Federation of the Indian State

interesting thoughts aaman

Is this the fate of all large societies? Is there a way to resolve the inevitable centripetal forces in society without authoritarianism?

let us talk about two countries that are not authoritarian in the 'classic' sense and where the their states/provinces are in no hurry to secede ... yes,we had some quebecois rumblings in the past....but there is no session talk now...the contributing factors may have more to do with a 'relatively' strong economy, a homogenous culture etc. than any over 'authoritarianism'

Aaman, good article. Your last sentence was the reason for all the present maladies, "authoritarianism". Instead of the residual authority flowing from the centre, had it started from the periphery towards the centre, most of the present day problems would not exist.

That's what Gandhiji suggested as a model, empowering villages to enrich the centre. Only for some 'Wisdom would come late' for many in our polity it would never.

Kashmir protests are simple proof that secularism exists in India only where Hindus are in Majority.

Wherever Hindus are in minority secularism also dies. If Indian goverment can spend 112000 crore Rs for subsidy for Haz pilgrims including those form kashmir, If Andhra Pradesh's christian chief minister can give subsidy to christian pilgrims to jerusalam or bethelham without Hindu protests, if haz houses can be build all over India to facilitate Muslim pilgrims with tax payers money and government land with cost of crores of Rs, if a dedicated haz terminal can be constructed in major cities Airports, why Hindus should not be given facilities in Kashmir or othet states with government land and government funds.

Opposite to it, whenever there is Kumbh fair in any city, Government increases bus fairs as `mela tax' to recoiver every Ruppee it has spend to make arrangements.

Clearly secularism in practice has become anti Hinduism. It is needed by Indians only till Hindus become minority. That day no more secularism is needed.

As such secularism practised in India today has become a tool to elimiate native cultures slowly but steadyly and all those who have little love for their civilisational values to do something within their reach to make sure "principal of equality to all" . and this "all' should include Hindus also.

India's policy with respect to Kashmir is wrong from the day one. Kashmir should have been prtitioned just like Punjab and Bengal. That way minority i.e. hindus would not have become refugees in their own country. Gradually, more and more hindus will leave the province and India will be forced to give it up or it will simply become an occupied land at enormous cost.

The province as it is now is not a normal part of India anyway. It is unlikely that it will ever become a normal part. So what is the future? A short period of peace and politicians think all has become well until next erruption. If one does'nt admit the mistake there is no hope for correcting it.

As far as power gravitating towards provinces is concerned, I think it is not a bad idea. Residual power should flow towards lower unit, lowest unit being an individual and highest the federal government.

And Man Singh is right, Islam and secular concept are not compatible. It does not require a lot brain power to figure that out. Just read Quran. It is also a political menifesto. So naturaly almost all muslim majority countries are Islamic republics.

Morris:

""And Man Singh is right, Islam and secular concept are not compatible. It does not require a lot brain power to figure that out. Just read Quran. It is also a political menifesto. So naturaly almost all muslim majority countries are Islamic republics."'

Fact check (ok, the wikipedia is not the fount of interpretive truth. And I have been prety sarcastic about folks relying too much on it, but when it comes to factual issues, it is a convenient "ready-reckoner" that everyone can refer to.). So, here goes the myth that Turkey is the only country with a Muslim majority that is secular:

""List of secular states with majority Muslim populations
This is a list of secular predominantly Muslim countries in the world.


Africa
Burkina Faso[3]
Chad[4]
Gambia[5]
Guinea[6]
Mali[7]
Senegal[8]
Somalia[9]

Asia
Kyrgystan[10]
Tajikstan[11]
Turkmenistan[12]
Uzbekistan

Europe
Albania
Azerbaijan[13]
Kazakhstan[14]
Kosovo
Turkey[15]""

Note: I am not defending political Islam, nor denying the fact that it is a real problem vis-a-vis secularism. It is indeed a huge problem. But there is a "text" (Quran, whatever) and a "context". In light of the facts, it is hard to maintain the fiction (but not impossible as Man Singh always demonstrates, and as Morris is fond of bringing up from time to time) that all countries with a Muslim majority population are necessarily and inevitably Islamic republics due to the Quran that apparently determines every aspect of society everywhere where Muslims live. The fact is that they are not, unless we think that the only Muslim countries worth focusing on are located in the Middle East. And indeed, where would be the need for moronic and rabid Islamists such as Bin Laden and his ilk, if the translation of the text (Quran) into a particular context (society) were on autopilot as MS and Morris seem to argue?

the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Muslim

Morris

Nobody is going to give up Kashmir. Having said that, i expect more unification measures taken in the future between both wings of Kashmir. Example: They can have a common university and education system. Build a railway line between both the wings. Common admission exams for all institutions in the region. Integrated electricity grid. Common rules for transportation licenses. Common rules for state level taxation. A complete separation from India/Pak needs enormous maturity and I believe that one cannot expect this in the next 30-50 years. Over and above, you have two nations bent on screwing us (China and Pak) and I see no reason we should help them by handing over Kashmir to Pak.

rgds

CS - The countries you have mentioned are all either in Sub Saharan Africa or E Europe or are Baltic republics (where the population is not Arabs, and have had a great deal of interaction with Western civilization). One cannot expect Pakistanis or Bangladeshis to have the same mindset.

Yesterday, there were eulogies to Fld Mshl Sam Maneckshaw in major newspapers crediting him for the victory in the Bangladeshi war.

It is convenient to sweep under the carpet the fact that some 35 years later it is those ungrateful [EDITED] from Bangladesh who are sending terror squads into India with alarming regularity. Clearly it shows what they value more - their religion as against their own independence.

"ungrateful [EDITED] from Bangladesh "

I am sorry but i feel this should be edited.

L:

""CS - The countries you have mentioned are all either in Sub Saharan Africa or E Europe or are Baltic republics (where the population is not Arabs, and have had a great deal of interaction with Western civilization).""

You are of course right. My point: despite all the headlines, one cannot make the factual claim that ALL countries with muslim majority populations are necessarily Islamic republics, because of some text called the Quran. There is a "text" and there is a "context" re: how religious fundamentalism plays out. And then of course there is a "con" "text" that tries to conflate complex issues into simplistic formulaes. And btw the Arab countries have always had contact with "Western" cultures, then, and now.

CS
You are right. Very interesting list. I am glad you corrected me. Now I know the exceptions to what I have been saying. It has not negated the point I have made. Where I have said 'almost all countries' I should say 'at least two thirds' and really nothing changes. I thank you for correcting me. Let me ask you a few qestions. In your opinion

1. Islam with quran as the final message of God compatible with the secular concept?

2. Those countries with muslimm majority not on your list are likely join the list and become secular in near future? I am assuming that the countries on your list are secular. A questionable assumption.

3. Those countries on your list are likely to become Islamic republic?

I am interested to know your thoughts about how Islam is evolving. Is it going towards liberalism or the other way aound. Having read quran, and observing what is going around the world I have doubts about Islam's compatibility with modern day thinking of say live and let live concept. But then I must admit I am a person of limited knowledge. You are smart and well read and I respect your views. What do you think?

Chandra
I am not sure how these unification measures are going to help India making Kashmir as its integral part. If that does not happen then what is the future? You are not suggesting that India will be able to absorb both wings of Kashmir.

If people of Kashmir do not want to be in India then they should be allowed to choose their own future. The main concern India should have is the future of minority. I think future of minority in muslim majority country is usually not good. CS will be posting a list of exceptions and I am prepared to rethink depending upon what it contains. That is why I was suggesting partition. I realize that it is not likely to happen.

Morris,

As usual, let me be honest with you. In other words, I have no axe to grind, except for a self-declared secularist-humanist one!

So, as far as predicting which way the remaining secular countries with majority of muslims will go, honestly i have not a clue. I will however point out that it is generally (sometimes it could be!) not a good idea to refer to certain key texts such as the Quran, and then point out to what the behaviour of all believer, semi-believers, opportunistic believers, fair-weather-believers, non-believers but yet culturally the same as believer, non-believers but yet ethnically the same as believers etc. will be. Sometimes we can make some limited predictions, and other times we cannot. Unfortunately, there is no "hard science" that can come up with iron-clad, law-like predictions about the drama of social life. Even in the natural sciences, it is not possible and we deal with atoms/molecules that have no culture, no free-will, no intentionality that humans do.

Bottom line: yes, as a secularist i recognize the dangers of religion having ANY role to play in the formulation of public policy. At the same time, I recognize the dangers of labelling all Muslims or members of any other religion in a manner that only encourages them to live up to such expectations: a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Second bottom line: to believe that all Muslims are completely and totally auto-programmed by a text called the Quran whose genesis lies a few hundred years ago, is to simplify the issue too much. My point? If this were indeed the case, there would be no need for bin ladens and the thousands of jihadi mullahs to rally the troops, so to speak. Once again, the "text" and the "context", combined with of course, the self-appointed thekedaars of religion, culture, tradition etc. If you have really gotten to know any Muslims, if you have ever had any Muslim friends that you have invited over to your house etc. you might have noticed that, despite the media headlines, they do not necessarily consult their mini-pocketable Qurans for every little issue they have to confront as they negotiate their way thru life.

I am not a politician, nor a bureaucrat. Like you, and of course I respect your views, I have just my mind to think about things. I have no illusion about changing anyone's mind, let alone changing the world.

CS
All you are doing is deflecting away from the main point I am making. That is majority Muslim countries are not secular and have a poor record with regard to treatment minorities. In my opinion Quran is very clear about that. Of course I am not saying that all muslims are fanatics etc..That is not the issue. The issue is the collective will of muslim people. Just now I learnt that christians are being ruthlessly driven out of liberated Iraq. They were well treated in Sadam's Iraq. Are'nt you willing to take a position on those sort of things. I agree with what you have said. But it seems to me that you are unwilling to face the truth whatever the reason may be and thereby supporting the stus qou.

Morris:

""Just now I learnt that christians are being ruthlessly driven out of liberated Iraq. They were well treated in Sadam's Iraq."'

the point being that Iraq for decades was a secular country and now it is not. the context changed. as for taking a position: i detest any spillover of religion into public life and any differential treatment of religious, ethnic, cultural groups.

CS
'i detest any spillover of religion into public life and any differential treatment of religious, ethnic, cultural groups.'
Good point but
That is a cop out. You are genealizing. We are discussing a specific issue.
Sadam was a dictator. Will of the people did not have any thing to do with his secular country.

Morris,

I think we have inadvertently come to the end of our discussion, perhaps with my copout. I do not intend to defend Saddam or Islam, only secular humanism. Perhaps i should not have jumped in on this one, so i guess this is yet another cop-out! Better than we argue with each other without generating any light!

Peace!

CS

Morris

When I meant unification, I only suggested organs of the two states and not the two states itself. As far as India is concerned, we have no intentions of absorbing the Pakistan side of the border. There are far too many Punjabi and other immigrants there now.

What Kashmiri people think is consequential to the Indian nation today. If it was really that important, we could have organised a referendum many years ago. It is a choice for Kashmiris and Pakistanis to make- If they wish to continue with the bloodshed, we will continue to be unwilling participants in it. But the choice of bloodshed is of sunni muslim Kashmiris and their Pakistani friends. You can call it hypocrisy, sure. But for an average Indian this is like survival. You remove Kashmir and there will millions to stand up and ask for the nation to be split (like the USSR). Now that is not something all of us want, do we

CS # 5

Out of the 16 contries 14 are worth of a major city in India and hence carry neglegible weight unless used just to add numbers.

Yes Uzbekistan and Turky are worth mentioning and it is well known that these communities has become so due to long communist rule in Uzabekistan and Europe holding economy of Turky.

If I add up all Muslim population of these countries it is 166 Million people and now compare the same with total Muslim population on the blobe ie 1480 Million.

As such hardly 10% people support democracy and secularism. Clearly CS is quoting exceptions and not mainstream thinking.

Saudi Arabia is the model state to Understand what islam stands for. Muslims minds of of South Asia with whom we Hindus have day to day contact are controlled by Saudi and its associates.

This saudi type of mentality of Kashmiri Muslims is prompting them to oppose usage of land by Hindu pilgrims in spite of the fact that Billions of tax payers money has been spent by India on haz terminals on airports, subsidy on haz travel and haz houses on prime locations in major cities of India.

This attitude of Kashmiri muslims reflects the real face of Islam as preached by Saudi Arabia.

Above all I am happy to see at least 16 Muslim majority countries swearing of secularism. Let's support them. But side by side we should support hindus of India also struggling hard to winreligious freedom in their own country.

Is it possible in any part of the world where Majorityy is discriminated to appease minority?

1.6 Billion christians have 166 votes in UN, 1.4 Billion Muslims have 63 Votes and 1.0 Billion Hindus have zero votes.

This is the reason when Moscow mayor captured Hare Krishna Temple, the only voice of support comes from Tony Blare Prime Minister of Britain and not from anywhere else including India whose values hare Krishnas are spreading around the globe.

In Indian South East Asian context, securalism will die along with diminshing population of Hindus. Kashmir is visible example next to Pakistan and Bangla Desh. It sounds to be crude I know. It sounds to be so mean I know. I sounds to be against Indian traditional Values I know. But ground reality is this only and if we make same mistake what Prithviraaj Chauhan made, history will repeat itself.

Prithvi forgave Gauri 2 times because of our value of forgiveness.

Gauri got one opoortunity , he never forgave Prithvi and we all know that mistake of Prithvu caused slavery of 1000 years to India.

Forgiveness is a virtue. But we should always check if person in frot is deserving or not?

Man Singh,

May Allah, if he or she exists, bless you.

MS,

Have you heard this song?

Ley dataa ka naaam
Tujhko allah rakkhey
Subha sey ho gaiee shaam
Tujhko allah rakkhey

Thanks Man Singh for some more information about those 16 muslim majority (secular?) countries. I generally agree with your comments. But I think UN votes should not be assigned religion. If India does not sit in the UN as a hindu nation then that is the way it should be. With regard to other issues it is the policy of Government of India. People elect them so one has to assume that such is their wish. They like this pseudo secular concept. That is to appease the minorities. Perhaps that is what Prithvi Raj was trying to do when he let go Ghori. May be that is the tradition is from the away back.

Same applies with respect to Islamic republics of the world. Although a large number of them are not democratic, we have to assume that they have the support of their people. And they like to be Islamic and like to treat the minorities very differntly. Perhaps that is the way Mohmed did. And they too are keeping their tradtion.

There is no shortage of good people around the world. We can find them in all countries, cultures, races and religions. Then why are'nt these people able to help eliminate sufferings and injustices of the world. The answer is simple. Most of us are unwilling to take a stand. All of us have emotional attachments to our roots. So if someone points out some dirt in our back yard, we can brush it aside by pointing out a lot of trash around the world. Hey, that is one way to keep the world dirty. Cleaning can start only if we admit there is dirt. Otherwise those who are good in creating dirt are entitled to believe that what they are doing is acceptable and they have our support. I think the silent majority cannot escape the blame. For crying out loud let us all speak up when we see the dirt.

Morris:

""For crying out loud let us all speak up when we see the dirt.""

I totally agree with you. For me, it is nothing less than dirt when believers of any religion try to push their ideology/beliefs in the public sphere. As I say, believe anything you want, but please do so in the privacy of your own private sphere. In EVERY religon, wihout exception, there are folks who are too self-righteous about the superiority of their own ways and there is always a critical mass of people who believe in the live and let live policy. As a secular humanist, I support expanding the numbers of the latter (those with live-and-let-live attitude) and contracting the former (the sectarians). Of course I am not a politician nor a bureaucrat, thank the non-existent God! All I can do really is to express my views.

Unfortunately, despite appearances to the contrary, and despite his protests, Man Singh does espouse views of the superiority of something called "Dharma" that is supposed to be applicable not just to all Indians, but presumably all humans. I have no problem with him believing in the value of Dharma. What I don't understand is how he is convinced that it is good for EVERYONE. We are back to the problem of one community/way of thinking, claiming a universal high moral ground. Secular humanists do not do this as they believe in rational, non-religious deliberation of all issues that are in the realm of the public sphere. Thus, no so-called divine texts such as the Quran or holy precepts that apparently cannot be modified, are theoretically allowed to hold sway when it comes to making choices about public policy. Sure wrong choices can be made and are made even by secular humanists, since they have no claim to divine infallibility. However, in principle, these bad choices can be modified, rectified, based on further RATIONAL rather than RELIGIOUS justification. I believe this approach does not victimze anyone, not even the true religious believers. Thus, if Muslims do not like to consume pork, fine. But they cannot insist that nobody else should not eat pork in a particular society. The fact that this is not the situation in many Islamic societies should not stop us from aiming for such a situation, however utopian such a goal might appear to be. This is the only RATIONAL way to proceed such that nobody's rights are stepped upon.

Sorry I am getting long-winded than usual....my verbal diarrohea!

CS
This is my last one. Individuals are going to have differing views. And they should indeed. Man Singh is saying what he believes and you are refuting it. No dirt has been created by either side. This is just a heathy debate. If those in power (or stronger) were pushing down the throats of people (weaker) thier so called "Dharma" surely dirt is created. A lot of such things are happening all around the world. Treatment of minorities, untouchables, women etc. are clear dirt. When you call a country an Islamic republic you are beginning to discriminate and instilling fear of persicution in minorities. That too is dirt. It does not matter what one calls himself rational, religious, humanist or whatever, if he/she is not able to speak about the dirt of this kind the label means nothing. It is very easy for all of us to be a good human being so long as we do not have to make a choice.

How we relate with each other is evolving since the start of civilization. Untouchability while acceptable in the past is no longer acceptable. I am not suggesting that it has been eradicated. The US where blacks were kept as slaves is likely to elect a black as their president. And yet some parts of our world either because of the religions or cultures have been booged in the past. They are refusing to evolve and in the process creating a lot of dirt. It is time we speak up.

Morris,

My last one too, since I do see and most rational people should see this assertion by MS, dividing the whole world into religious categories alon, to be a problem. Although you are not responsible for him, and you also see it as a problem:

""1.6 Billion christians have 166 votes in UN, 1.4 Billion Muslims have 63 Votes and 1.0 Billion Hindus have zero votes.""

Once we slide down this irrational slope, I do see it as "dirt" to use your terms....

I am glad to see you speak up. More power to you and less to people who view the world thru a purely sectarian view.

Yeaa look at the universal law of gravitation. It is applicable on whole humanity. same way Dharma means eternal law and is applicable for humanity. Its so simple but its wrong English translation by imperialists and their associates as `religion' has confused yoy CS Bhai.

Bottom line is that when I am being beaten around the globe for practising human values known as `Hindu' nowadays and nobody speaks out, it is pretty natural for me to write `""1.6 Billion christians have 166 votes in UN, 1.4 Billion Muslims have 63 Votes and 1.0 Billion Hindus have zero votes.""

You call is dirt doesn matter to me. What matters to me is if somebody comes for my help when I am being beaten up.

I gave an example of Hare Krishnas being eprcecuted in Russia and silence of whole world. If such a case might have occured to a Muslim or Christian UN might have passes resolutions for sanction against that country immediately.

Again let me repeat that please dun go on wordings of story, please go by moral of teh story.

`Live and Let live' preached and practised by followers of Dharma and not by the rest. Rest of humanity is engaged in proslutisation and evangelism or dawa't to islam by not letting others live. I wonder why `secular humanist' closes their eyes on this very fundamental truth.

Secular humanism is nothing but Dharma but Indians infected by inferiority complex towards the values of their forfathers are shy to give credit to their forfathers for their humanistic teachings.

Muslims pilgrimage is funded by the government of India. very good.

Christian pilgrimage is funded by government in Andhara's christian chief minister. Very good.

At the time of Hindu pilgrimage government imposes additional mela tax to recover the municipality cost for arrangements: I feel is it wrong and discriminatory.

Hindu pilgrims are not allowed to use forst land in Kashnmir even for temporary shelter and same muslims who are enjoying Hindu tax payers money for their own pilgrimage oppose this minor facility to Hindu pilgrims. I feel it is wrong.

Most surprising thing is that a `secular humanist' is not ready to criticise those fanatics who are reday to enjoy all facilities in India in the name of Islam and are absolutly intolreant towards Hindus.

Such `secular humanists' are indirectly supporting these intorant bigots out of their zeal to prove themselves super secular.

I stand for equality for all and appeasement for none.

Till it is not happening, I have moral duty to support all who are being discriminated and maltreated by `seculars' or their counterpart fanatic intolerants.

MS:

""Yeaa look at the universal law of gravitation. It is applicable on whole humanity""

universal law of gravitation: Mass of the Ass = inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle

CS # 26

Happy to see your understanding of Universal law of gravitation. Please enjoy the bliss of the same. Now I am clear why you fail to grasp Dharma concept.

ManSingh#18:"Saudi Arabia is the model state to Understand what islam stands for"
"ManSingh#18: ..reflects the real face of Islam as preached by Saudi Arabia"

I am not sure, on what basis you have made this statement. There is no country in the world that is a Islamic model state in its true sense. The basic flaw of Saudi Arabia being the concept of Kingship, If it is an Islamic state then it cannot be a Kingdom.


If you are interested in Islamic governance and rule, there a very good book "The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State"
by Noah Feldman (who is a professor of Law at Harward Univ).


"ManSingh#18:If I add up all Muslim population of these countries it is 166 Million people and now compare the same with total Muslim population on the globe ie 1480 Million."

As per the numbers are concerned
The total muslim population of the world according to the 2007 consensus is around 1.5 billion out of which the middle eastern so called islamic states account for 17.64%.

That implies 82.56% of the muslims are living under secular conditions either in a secular country or so called islamically secular countries.

What I believe is that there were three religions brought down on this planet for arabs who were lost. Inspite of this, that region is still in a mess.

The worst part is that the media has projected islam to be associated with only arabs. As a result a lot of people out of ignorance (words like perhaps, may be) assume camel culture of the arabs to be islam.

Dear MS,

It is one thing to say I believe dharma is good, and quite another to say it is universal. Please clarify your stand: do you sincerely believe that everyone should stop believing in other books/religions and start converting to dharma?

Regards,

Ravi

#28 Other then Turkey and few ex-communists which sizable Muslim country is secular?

Turkey has become secular only after eliminating almost all non muslims from their land. hardly 1% of Turkey population is non muslim.

Top populated Muslim countries are Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangla desh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.

The only secular is Turkey and rest are all theorcratic.

Most funniestthing is that India's secularists oppose theocracy in India or Nepal but support same theorcracy in Pakistan and Bangla Desh ?

Ravi #29

You have raised a very valid question. Dharma is a combination of 10 universal human values (daya dhriti khsama ..). It is not a religion. Religion is way of worship and a methodology to inject the establish dharma in humanity.

That's why Dharma is universal and religions are not. I never say rest people of religions should abandon their books. Not at all.

I only highlighted what Dharma means. I think Englihs translation of Dharma as `religion' is the biggest intellectual blunder in last 250 years. It was intentionally done to divide Indians on religious lines. Otherwise we never divided humanity based on way of worship or religion. India is the house of thousamds of different ways of worship since time immerorial.

We always identified people based on natural instincts and human values irrespective of way of worship. Good Muslim or Christian or even Athests are equally Dharmic as long as they respect these universal human values.

The so called secular humanism is almost matches with `Dharma'.

Yes all religions should reevaluate themselves in teh light of these human values and update themseles.

Concepts of brotherhood based on religion are Adharmic as humanity should be the basis of universal brotherhood and not way of wroship. Therefore all right thinking people should discourage religion based groupings and it causes enenisity between humans. Groupings based on universal human values(known as Dharma) fosters brotherhood of whole humanity and not narrow muslim brotherhood or christian brotherhood or ..

Budha strated a new religion. Still he said he is establishing Dhamma.

Mahavir started new religion Jainism Still he said he is reestablishing Dharma.

Sikh Gurus establsihed a separate religion and still said they are re-establishing Dharma.

Therefore Dharma is the core of human values as universal as laws of gravitation. let all religions prevail and progress side by side.

Any religious group engaged in eliminating others through active proslytisiation using money muscle or marriage are acting against Dharma. Hope I am able to explain difference between Dharma and religion.

In India context religion means `panth' which means path towards Dharma. The moment we understand difference between Dharm and Panth our confusion will be eliminated.

Dharma is sanatan (eternal) while Panths (religions) keep on changing.

Dharma respects all paths to righteouness as `equally valid'.

Religions of Abrahmic series(Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are founded on `My way is the only true way, others are false and falseness need to be eliminated'. This aspect of Abrahmic religions creates conflicts among themselves and with rest of humanity as ot prompts conversions.

In Dharma system all paths are equally valid. a seeker is free to choose whatever he/she feels suitable to him/her and as such lays down foundation of peace and harmony for humanity. I am not denying the instances in hsitory when Dharma holding people also infected by narrowmindedness and conflicts occured between various Panths. But the magnitude of such conflicts are very rare opposite to history of religious wars among Abrahmic faiths.

Dharma is not a belief system. It is something to be seen and realised. So Dharma follwers are seers or seekers and not believers as abrahmics are.

MS:

""In Dharma system all paths are equally valid. a seeker is free to choose whatever he/she feels suitable to him/her""

contradicts:

""Religions of Abrahmic series(Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are founded on `My way is the only true way, others are false and falseness need to be eliminated'. This aspect of Abrahmic religions creates conflicts among themselves and with rest of humanity as ot prompts conversions.""

Either, "all paths are equally valid" or they are not, no escape clauses. Basic commonsense. Otherwise, an Orwellian, "all paths are equally valid, as long as they do not lead to Judaism, Islam and Christianity". Basic commonsense.

a+b+c=whatever:

""What I believe is that there were three religions brought down on this planet for arabs who were lost. Inspite of this, that region is still in a mess."'

Really??? And why exactly were the arabs lost before these three religions? What kind of logic is this? People are lost until they get injected with such and such religion? Aren't you saying exactly what Man Singh is saying, even though you both are arguing with each other? This whole notion of "unless you believe this or that you will be lost" as Man Singh seems to believe, thru verbal gymnastics, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It matters little what people believe in or do not believe in, whether it is Dharma or Judaism, as long as they do not allow it to influence public policy and laws meant for everyone. The fact that they do, is more reason to eradicate this influence, rather than touting, as Man Singh does, the so-called "universal values" of Dharma and then claiming, in the same breath "all paths are valid".

(Unless you mean that they were lost due to the sandstorms...but then, how exactly did religion help them to find their way home? A compass (no, not a moral compass) might have been more suitable)

MS:

""Good Muslim or Christian or even Athests are equally Dharmic as long as they respect these universal human values.

The so called secular humanism is almost matches with `Dharma'.""

And MS has this patented inventory of so-called "universal human values". aka conceptual imperialism.

commonsense32#
"
a+b+c=whatever:

"Really??? .... before these three religions? What kind of logic is this? People are lost until they get injected with such and such religion?' "

Consider an example (not restricted to MENA region or any particular society)

A and B are neighbours,
A is celebrating his son's 10th Bday.
B says Wow its going be a yummy evening.

The question is why does B say " yummy evening"

The best possible reasonable answer to this question is that B will be invited to A to attend his son's Bday party and he will enjoy some good food there. This is what you and me and most of us think.

But
But

What if B actually meant that a 10 year old child is yummy, and the people living in that area have the same human loving views. Every second child born in a household should be shared among the society when he/she is 10years old.

What would a sane secular humanists following dharma with commonsense call B's society to be?

a+b+c = whatever,

I am not into useless drivel anymore. I used to thrive on it a few months ago. i used to be a secular humanist, but now i'm a sane secular humanist (as in, trying to protect your sanity, not min) you might however try reading some books by anthropologists and try if you can, respecting others and their ways of life, however flawed they might appear by your own so-called standards of logic and rationality.

a+b+c = whatever, _How Judaism, Christianity and Islam Saved the Arabs from Eating Their Second Born Children and Thus Saved Them from Themselves_ (Jeddah: Logical Press, 1638), pp. 304 + iv (Price: 22 Dirhams)

Hot off the press!

Singh, Man _"All Paths are Equally Valid, as Long as it is My Path: Or How to have your Gulab Jamun and Eat it Too!" (Meerut: Tota Maina Kee Kahanee Press, 2008)

Buy at Gangajumna.com (Amazon.com have perverted the spirit of Dharma. Stay away from them)

commonsense :

There is a platform because of which u consider your self to be sane humanist or whatever. The circumstances of todays world which evolved over time provides you the ability to think in that fashion. A lot of credit should be given to the religions around the world for those circumstances
Imagine that you were born in a barbaric era where people kill each other for fun. If you dont kill the person infront of you he will kill you. All those sanity, humanity what you talk about never existed as human beings were animals.

""Imagine that you were born in a barbaric era where people kill each other for fun.""

sounds pretty much like our contemporary era. so you think religion saved us all from killing as a spectator sport? and not just religion but "better" religions?

Dear MS (#30),

I accept your definition of Dharma. While it is true that the religions you mentioned have a better-than-thou attitude, the same can be said of the many practitioners of Hindu dharma. You can claim that these are not true practitioners of dharma, but in that case you will be hard pressed to find a handful of true practitioners of dharma anywhere.

It is one thing to have great principles and ideals, and quite another to actually put them in practice. Unfortunately ancient hindus shot themselves in the foot by making knowledge acquisition extremely difficult and restricting it to a chosen few. I understand there must have been practical difficulties. However, today we have no more excuses left. A fairly significant percentage of the hindu population have access to good education and better still, easy access to information. And yet why is there such a shortage of true wisdom, that dharma, in our society? We need to worry more about that and less about how others are even more flawed.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Dear CS (#32),

'Either, "all paths are equally valid" or they are not, no escape clauses. Basic commonsense. Otherwise, an Orwellian, "all paths are equally valid, as long as they do not lead to Judaism, Islam and Christianity". Basic commonsense.'

Actually what MS says and what you conclude are not quite correct. While it is true that within hinduism there is a core belief that all paths lead to the same place, it is said in a particular context. So, I don't think, hinduism includes paths like christianity, islam or judaism. These religions were unknown at the time. The philosophical debates revolved around various yogic paths such as bhakti, raja, karma, jnana etc. There was also this advaita/dvaita debate that is purely philosophical nature and hardly be termed religious.

As hinduism accepts even an atheist as a hindu, one could argue that other paths taken by muslims, christians or jews could also be accepted as valid. That is a good point, but that was probably not what was meant by "all paths are valid".

The political correctness doctrine holds sway with most of the inter religious/spiritual dialog today. That's rather unfortunate. One should be able to argue without the fear of offending someone or retribution while discussing our religious and spiritual beliefs. I don't see why we can't debate with other communities relative merits and demerits of our respective belief systems. Due to the walls we have constructed between communities within the last century, we have only increased the alienation and misunderstanding.

Such debates were very common during the times of Adi Shankara (8th Century AD) and there abouts. In fact people say that Buddhism declined in India because of his brilliant defense of core beliefs of hinduism. I know such debates existed even among jews, christians and muslims at various times. Why can't we bring those times back?

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Dear a^2-b^2=(a+b)...,

People are not "lost". At various times in our evolution we have adopted cultures, which are sometimes good and sometimes not so good. Over a period of time, people tend to gravitate towards a "good", that benefits majority of the people. However, the definition of what constitutes good, changes over time.

The basic problem with Abrahamic religions in particular, and religion in general is the belief that there is a core set of principles that hold good for all the people, everywhere and for all the time. This has been shown to be wrong again and again. That's why muslims today are put in the unenviable position of defending the most illogical beliefs. Perhaps the inspired writings of 7th century Arabia were appropriate for that time. Because muslims claim that this writing came from God himself, they are now defending a contradiction; namely there is a set of core beliefs that was good for that time, but it is also good now even though circumstances have clearly changed. Your thoughts?

Regards,

Ravi

Ravi:

""The basic problem with Abrahamic religions in particular, and religion in general is the belief that there is a core set of principles that hold good for all the people, everywhere and for all the time.""

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head here and I completely agree with you. Thank you for expressing your views with such clarity and simplicity. I would emphasize the fact that this is a problem with "religion in general". Of course Man Singh denies that Dharma has anything to do with religion at all, blaming as usual Eurocentrics for this label. Whatever it may or may not be, it has the same properties of specifiying eternal verities that presumably cannot and should not be tampered with. As in, the essense of fundamentalism, regardless of how much one wishes to deny that label.

Ravi:

""While it is true that within hinduism there is a core belief that all paths lead to the same place, it is said in a particular context. So, I don't think, hinduism includes paths like christianity, islam or judaism. These religions were unknown at the time.""

Thus, one cannot insist on "all paths are equally valid" given the context in which such ideas/principles were formulated. Otherwise, one is acting in "bad faith". This formula might have worked in a particular context, but one cannot specifiy a universl, contextless, one-size-fits-all-humans-all-societies in advance. Either:

"all paths are equally valid" or they are not.

If the context has changed, so has the context for Judaism, Islam and Christianity, compared to when they came into existence. Most Jews, Muslims and Christians realize this. A minority are hell bent on being "fundamentalists" and trying to insist on so-called divine, eternal principles. Other so-called non-Abrahamic religions fall into the same trap when they argue along the same lines ie. "mine is longer than yours. And better too".

At the end of the day, religious or any other divine or non-divine, eternal principles will never help us come to grips with zillions of unique problems that societies throw up as they are transformed. Secular humanists deny the very validity of "set in stone" principles that cannot be tampered with. Sure, secular humanist principles are not without problems, but the problems they throw up, have to be addressed with further application of secular humanism which is informed by the trials and errors, and not informed by some divine principles, be they so-called Abrahamic, non-Abrahamic or Martian or inter-galactic!

Regards,

CS

All paths are good. That is true only if all of them respect rights of each other to exist. If the path that says that it is the only right one and others are wrong then of course that path does not belong to the group. You believe in democracy but if your mendate is to eliminate democracy then we have a problem

My god, it is a long windingly informative discussion about politics, religion, economic and what not. But are we discussing any solutions here?
Myopic political solutions have greatly aggravated the problems. The special status has deprived the state of vibrant pool of migrant talents and skills needed for economic revival leading to cooling down of temperatures and build up fissures.
But that possibility looks very bleak.
If the Kashmiris think they will have a better future alone, let them give a try.
All politicians seek power and promise what some people want to have.

Morris,

In an inevitably multi-religious and a-religious world, secular humanism, not some dogmatic devotion to a specific religion or dharma, ensures a semblance of democracy. Because in principle, even the foundational principles can always be revised, in light of social changes that cannot always be predicted, but changed, based on human, rather than divine or "eternal, universal" principles. This is the path of democracy. If it does not always work perfectly, the other alternatives are worse: ie. imposition of one set of universal, eternal principles, be they Dharmic, Abrahamic or derived from Mars and Venus.

Man Singh's school of sophistry: (crystallized in his response #30)

1. Assert, in an authoritarian manner that there are exactly 10 universal principles of Dharma and these are eternal, supreme and of course, the best! (just as others claim the same for 10 commandments etc. etc.)

2. Then pretend to show that this assertion is true by illogicaly pointing out that this is the case because the Buddha, Mahavira and the Sikh Gurus and a host of others also believed in this. Therefore, as a human, are you going to believe them or your own brains?

3. Then assert that all paths that lead towards these 10 eternal principles are valid, others are not. Everyone else is dismissed, no iffs and buts.

4. Then have your rasgullas and eat it too: by pretending to be democratic, ie. "all paths are equally valid" as long as they lead to the goal of 10 eternal principles.

5. And why should these 10 eternal principles are valid and should be upheld under all conditions? Well, simply because they are valid and supreme; besides, didn't the Buddha, Mahavira and the Sikh gurus tell us so?

6. Moral of the story: all the problems of the world will be resolved thru the application of 10 eternal principles.

7. End of story.

Man Singh's school of sophistry: (crystallized in his response #30)

1. Assert, in an authoritarian manner that there are exactly 10 universal principles of Dharma and these are eternal, supreme and of course, the best! Just like the "laws of gravitation" they are self-evident and hence no need to even argue over them. (just as others claim the same for 10 commandments etc. etc.)

2. Then pretend to show that this assertion is true by illogicaly pointing out that this is the case because the Buddha, Mahavira and the Sikh Gurus and a host of others also believed in this. Therefore, as a human, are you going to believe them or your own brains?

3. Then assert that all paths that lead towards these 10 eternal principles are valid, others are not. Everyone else is dismissed, no iffs and buts.

4. Then have your rasgullas and eat it too: by pretending to be democratic, ie. "all paths are equally valid" as long as they lead to the goal of 10 eternal principles.

5. And why should these 10 eternal principles are valid and should be upheld under all conditions? Well, simply because they are valid and supreme; besides, didn't the Buddha, Mahavira and the Sikh gurus tell us so?

6. Moral of the story: all the problems of the world will be resolved thru the application of 10 eternal principles.

7. End of story. Is there a problem? Dharma to the rescue. All paths are valid, but it's either my way or the highway.

The above formula, based on Man Singh:

"Budha strated a new religion. Still he said he is establishing Dhamma.

Mahavir started new religion Jainism Still he said he is reestablishing Dharma.

Sikh Gurus establsihed a separate religion and still said they are re-establishing Dharma.

Therefore Dharma is the core of human values as universal as laws of gravitation. let all religions prevail and progress side by side.""

#45 Tunnevision

Bhai Tunnelvision, your statement "If the Kashmiris think they will have a better future alone, let them give a try." has some inaccuracies.

1. Its is Kashmiri Muslims who are fighting for a separate country and not all Kashmiris which include Hindus Sikhs Budhistsetc as well.

2. Almost whole Islamic Umma is supporting theur movement inlcuding OIC who passed a resolution in their favour recently.

3. As Kashmniri Muslims are demanding separate land as `Muslims' let's be fare to non muslims as well. In 1947 India was divided to give a separate homeland to Muslims. Muslims population in undivided India was 24% and land they got (pakistan + bangla desh) is 28% of total land ie 4% more then their genuine share. More then half of Muslims still remained on non muslim share of land. Non muslims who remained on Muslim land were has virtually been eliminated. As such in all fairness if any muslim group is not happy with India including kashmiri Muslims, they should give it a try in their share of land and leave non muslims in peace. They should go to their share of land in all fairness.

Why they should create a naked dance of violence against other communities. I believe all religions teach to be fare and not to capture others land in the name of religion?

#46, 47 and 48

Bhai Commonsense,

Just like laws of Science are always open to scrutiny by independent investigators and updated versions are the ones to be followed, Dharma also is updated to suit needs of Time space and circimestances. Ancinet sanskrit literature is full of these three words `Desh, Kaal and paristhiti' (space time and circumestances) and vivek ( logic, reason or commonsense) represented by Ganesha is the the one given supremamcy over traditions.

In the beginning dharma is represented by a secred Bull whose 4 legs represent Satya(Truth), Daya(Kidness) tap( Austerities) and Daan(charity/donation).

later writings many other virtues were added to suit new timings and number reacged to 30.

later bulky number was optimised to 10 and that's why I refer to 10 Universal values.

Dharma is a flexible concept like any other branch of knowledge and new research keep on adding to it. new principles to suit latest human need come it.

Even Athiests are part of Dharma and it is upto individual temperament to adopt of method to inculcate these human values either through religion(whene divinity is must) or through athiestic means where divinity is not considered.

I always insist the people to read definitions of the terms before talking about them.

Dharma defined in Vaisheshik Darshan saashtra one of the 6 schools of philosophy of vedic origoin defines it as :

"yato abhyuday nishreyas sidhi sa dharma"

which means

Dharma is that which fulfils the prosperity and the ultimate goal (of human life), namely liberation.

Therefore if you achive prosperity feel liberated by remaining an athiests please enjoy.

Untill here no trouble. Trouble starts when someone strats imposing his/her way on others.
Dharma doesn not accept it.

This is teh fundamental difference which Dharmik people have to understand while dealing with Abhramics. Abrahmics `believe' their path is the only true path and they have divine instruction to Impose their way of thinking on rest of teh world using money muscle or marriage?

This is the basic reason why Kashmiri muslims happyly enjoy subsidy on haz pilgrimage given by Government of India which include tax payers money from non muslims as well and same Muslims oppose even a temporary facility in Kashmir being a Muslim majority state.

Man Singh:

""In the beginning dharma is represented by a secred Bull whose 4 legs represent Satya(Truth), Daya(Kidness) tap( Austerities) and Daan(charity/donation)...etc. etc. etc.""

Yaar Man Singh, the bottom line is that my mother wears a polka dot dress and army boots.

CS # 51 happy to know that.

Hope you will undertsand now that Dharma is not religion but highest form of secular humanism which you claim to follow?

yah, yah, and jeremiah was a bull-frog too.

# 49 Man Singh:
Your point is taken to some extant. What is lacking in Kashmir is paucity of talents and skills to push start economic activity. That will make a huge change, but requires difficult and messy political process of constitutional amendments.
The discourse on drama, though very informative has no practical relation with the complex problem and its expected solutions.

TV:

""The discourse on drama, though very informative has no practical relation with the complex problem and its expected solutions.""

You can say that again! Your typo, "drama" instead of "dharma" is appropriate here! Dharma is indeed very important and to be respected etc. but it is converted to "drama-bazie" when applied, as the key to every problem, as MS does all the time.

Commonsense: Thanks a lot and yes the typo did convey a new take on politics of dharma.

Warm regards,

MS:

""[Dharma]..later bulky number was optimised to 10 and that's why I refer to 10 Universal values."

I think you have not kept up with the latest research on Dharma. Now the figure has been further streamlined to 7.5 universal principles of Dharma; if followed by everyone, especially those of the Abrahamic faith, it will lead to instant global utopia and bliss. Read all about it in:

Sri Man Gaye Singh "The seven and a half universal principles for attaining utopia: and for getting rid of abraham's progeny", Journal of Polymorphous Perversity, Vol. 23, 2009 (advance copy)

MS:

""Muslims minds of of South Asia with whom we Hindus have day to day contact are controlled by Saudi and its associates.""

True! But this may not be true of the Muslims with whom we have night to night contact. However, to deal with the day-to-day types, I must point out that the new generation of 3G and i-Phones makes such mind control from Saudi Arabia much easier. What is funny and tragic, is the fact that our Indian pseudo-seculars have never criticised the 3G phones. How then can Dharma be universalized? I suggest that a new generation of D-phones be invented. We have enough indigenous scientists to help us in this battle against 3G phones that allows the Saudis to control the minds of the followers of Abrahamic faiths in India. As it is clearly stated, "yato abhyuday nishreyas sidhi sa dharma", the D-phone should fulfil the ultimate goal of life, not just for us but for all of humanity. This is the urgent task of the day.

MS:

""Wherever Hindus are in minority secularism also dies."

Yes. France proves your point.

i hope peace is established in kashmir and the govt takes the right steps to keep the kashmirians happy and so the hawt kashmiri men can keep us women happy. lol. seriously girls kashmiri men are so attractive too bad they are a bit rugged and illiterate but its an unexploited gold mine out there.

TV # 54

Your analyis is partially true. kashmiri Muslims have eliminated almost all hindus sikhs and budhists and forced them to live in Jammu laddakh or rest of India.

In your analysis reasons are economic and that's why you say
"What is lacking in Kashmir is paucity of talents and skills to push start economic activity."

UP Bihar and many other areas are poorer then kashmir. Do you feel minority muslims should be kicked out from there at pretext of excuse of poverty?

No my freind poverty or economic activity is no reason for this intolerance at all. This is the excuse to hide the intolerance of doctrine they follow.

All of them involved in 9/11 were well educated and economicaly well to do people from countries where economic activities are in pretty good shape.

32 Indian doctors were involved in email chatting to plan terror attack at Glasgo airport. they all were educated and economically well to do.

Therefore it is wrong to attribute economic activity. This is an excuse to hide the intorelace preached by fanatics in the name of Islam. This fanatic interpretation and preaching if Islam is the root of evil which due to political correctness people are unable to speak out.

Please dun jump to conclusion to brand me `anti muslim' as many of my freinds here have done earlier. I am criticising jehadi type of fanatic Islam being preached to muslims of south Asia brainwashing life saving doctors to killer.

Osama Bin laden himself is a billionare and his ideology has nothing to do with his `poverty' or `lack of economic activity' or `paucity of talent'.

In all fairness if Kashmiri muslims are not happy with India they should go to their legitimate land generously given to them in the name of Islam 4% more then their legitimate share.


Basic issue is : Is it justifiable to oppose land transfer to shrine board by Muslims of Kashmir when Muslims of India enjoy all types of freedom and financial help from tax payers money?

let's have courage to say right as right and wrong as wrong without coming to justifications for the fanaticism shown by kashmiri Muslims.

@ man singh

noooooooooooo!

we want HOT KAHMIRI MEN. dont make them go away.
imagine having unlimited supply for bollywood heroes and male models.

ive heard they are WELL ENDOWED too !!

MS:

""Is it justifiable to oppose land transfer to shrine board..."

no point opposing land transfer. usually it takes a lot of work to transfer land - digging, hauling etc. And then one has to fill up that big whole created by the transfer. so nobody really bothers to transfer land and you should not oppose it because it seldom happens. it's a different story with water though.

CS # 59

We are discussing kashmir and India. This comment is in Indian context and Kashmir is a proof of my statement.

Please don'nt talk of colonial power including France whose hands are red in blood flowed when they committed indescribable crimes against humanity.

Hinduism is not even recongnised as a religion in France till date..

Please keep discussion limited to India for the time being.

CS # 58

Yes D-Phone is comung my freinds. UN is working for a Universal religion and Roman Catholic Church is the biggest stumbling block in it due to its belief of monopoly on God that `salvation is not possible out of Roman Catholic Church'.

@ vaidehi

itna hi showk hai to kashmir kyun nahi chali jaati muslims larkon kay saath raho un ki sex object ban jao.

MS:

""Yes D-Phone is comung my freinds. UN is working for a Universal religion and Roman Catholic Church is the biggest stumbling block in it due to its belief of monopoly on God that `salvation is not possible out of Roman Catholic Church'.""

Make sure D-phone is cheap and does not rip off its customers

MS:

""Hinduism is not even recongnised as a religion in France till date..

Please keep discussion limited to India for the time being."'

Very disappointed that you of all the people are using colonial terms such as "India", "Hinduism" etc. Please don't support these Eurocentric terms designed to only for the purpose of humiliating us.

CS
You think that secular humanism is the answer. I am suggesting that there is no answer. Who knows what is right and what is wrong. We have laws of the land to relate with each other. When we are successful in passing the laws to suit us that becomes the answer. So our efforts should be directed to that end. Beyond that people should have right to be wrong if they so choose. So I think secular humanism is nothing but another religion. And some one like you is preaching that religion and guilty of same thing as missionaries spreading there religion.

I am not suggesting that there is no need for some core beliefs. Indeed there is. I do not think we have a lot of disagreement about these core beliefs. But some of the laws in some countries are not in line with these core beliefs. But even there what can one do? People have a right to be wrong. But when they exercise that right in such a way that they take away my right to be wrong. That is not acceptable.

Morris,

I totally agree with you that there are no ultimate solutions! Society does not work that way.

Secular humanism is not a religion as it does not rely on any foundation divine or non-divine documents, be they man singh's 10 dharmic principles or the ten commandments, the quran whatever. Secular humanism is simply a practical strategy of dealing with issues as they crop up and yes of course it not only allows, but actually encourages people to have the right to be wrong. That is the whole point! To get away from the dogmatism of the clergy, divine texts, dharma etc. Not sure how it can be seen as a religion, because it does not impose anything on people, but rather enables human beings to be humans and not the slave of some pre-programmed beliefs that are forced upon them by the so-called religious community.

What ALL religions share in common is the issue/puzzle of death. This is the minimum issue that ALL religions address. What happens after we die? Be it reincarnation, heaven/hell and other such beliefs. Secular humanists do no address this issue because their focus is not to prepare for post-death scenarios, but to think about life as it is, before we die. Since secular humanists do not even address this issue, they are as far away from religion as can be conceptually imagined. They try to address the here and now in a rational manner; they treat humans as mature adults but understand why some people need religious beliefs, which is fine as long as these beliefs do not fuck up others who chose not to believe in them.

CS
You seem to be hung up on MS's 10 dogmas or whatever and 10 commandments. I have no problem with such things so long as they are not contradicting my core values or beliefs. On the other hand your secular humanism show a little concern about violation of human rights. Such violation goes against my core values and I like to say so. I fail to understand what is the big deal about 10 commandments etc. Who cares? The big deal about which you seem to show a little or no concern is violation of human rights in a number countries some with the support of their faith and you are unwilling to speak up.

i suspect i'm simply hung-over

That is religion of convinience. I suspected that you have a religion.

Morris,
yep, there's no religion like the brew. so, i disagree with aaman's take "all religion is crap". In fact, as many have pointed out, "beer is god's way of telling us that he loves us." so, you were right in suspecting that i have a religion and indeed you have caught me out. what to do?

Morris,
yep, there's no religion like the brew. it's a religion of convenience and it happens to be quite convenient too.

so, i respectfully disagree with aaman's take "all religion is crap". In fact, as many have pointed out, "beer is god's way of telling us that he loves us." so, you were right in suspecting that i have a religion and indeed you have caught me out. what to do?

CS
"there's no religion like the brew." I agree. No argument whatsoever. But I suggest a slight change in the rest. All religions are crap except mine.

I must admit that you left me wondering about all that BS of secular humanism.

i will drink to the new religion that is brewing...