1 of 2
1
International Solidarity for Secularism
Posted: 08 January 2011 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2010-03-07

announcement from Pakistan solidarity movement.

All organizations that promote secularity, freethought, freedom of religion or non-religion, or humanism should sign on to this. - Gary

http://internationaldayagainststatereligion.blogspot.com/

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST STATE RELIGION

My dear fellow citizens,

As all the non-Muslims as well as non-believers of Pakistan are the HALF CITIZENS; so, they must be FULL CITIZENS at once. The best constitutional, non-violent and peaceful way to win the right of FULL CITIZENSHIP is to DEMAND repeal of the STATE RELIGION from the Constitution of Pakistan. Thus, in solidarity with the HALF CITIZENS of Pakistan, I have the honor to propose “INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST STATE RELIGION.” Let us fix the 11th day of August as “INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST STATE RELIGION.” I hope that the foundation of such Day (IDASR) will set individuals and groups in motion to openly express their views against the State Religion of Pakistan. Do you agree? If yes, then, let us urge all the countries of Europe and all the other civilized nations around the world including United Nations to recognize this DAY.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2011 06:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

I wish all the people of the world equal citizenship.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2011 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2011-01-01

I would suggest the most effective way would be to start a political party based on equal rights for women. Obviously a secular stance as I know of no orthodox religion that doesn’t treat women as second class humans. One of my many ‘knocks’ against bhudism is it’s lack of proactive statements towards women’s issues. I do not understand why any woman anywhere would adhere to any orthodox religion other than being forced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2011 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Unfortunately, most people believe what they are taught in their first few years and never question it.  If a girl is taught from infancy that men are superior as ordained by god, that women must be subservient or they are sinful, etc., she is likely to accept that without ever even thinking about it.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2011 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2011-01-01

I would think most women see the “lie” in their religion’s proposition while growing up watching their parents (mom is just as, if not smarter than dad), living with idiot brothers, and further realizeing the “lie” when they get married, but most of all hanging out with their fellow femes gossiping.

A political party centered on women’s equality certainly will have half the population’s interest/support, it will just by it’s creation kick open the door for acknowledging a lot of issues.

How else do you improve the world? Do you think religion will ‘mature’?  War is at best a mixed bag…  Issue driven political parties are the inteligent persons’ preference..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2011 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Occam. - 11 January 2011 06:17 PM

Unfortunately, most people believe what they are taught in their first few years and never question it.  If a girl is taught from infancy that men are superior as ordained by god, that women must be subservient or they are sinful, etc., she is likely to accept that without ever even thinking about it.

Occam

Well, men are superior in strength, for example. It may be irrelevant in our culture but still plays a big role in other societies. Their religion is the product of their environment and merely reflects their culture. It is silly to blame religion for the way women are treated in the desert societies.

[ Edited: 12 January 2011 10:35 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2011 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 12 January 2011 10:32 AM
Occam. - 11 January 2011 06:17 PM

Unfortunately, most people believe what they are taught in their first few years and never question it.  If a girl is taught from infancy that men are superior as ordained by god, that women must be subservient or they are sinful, etc., she is likely to accept that without ever even thinking about it.

Occam

Well, men are superior in strength, for example. It may be irrelevant in our culture but still plays a big role in other societies. Their religion is the product of their environment and merely reflects their culture. It is silly to blame religion for the way women are treated in the desert societies.

I agree on the environmental influence in the evolution of a culture. And I can understand that local or regional religions reflect those influences. However, when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture. The problem then becomes the immovable dogma of that old religion. We can see from history that most religions were not replaced peacefully, but by the sword. So it is with Islam (as well as Christianity). These religions do continue to resist change and the Qu’ran is still the main obstacle to emancipation of women in the desert regions. But as those religions are now practised worldwide, the environmental necessity can no longer be claimed as being central, and the religion just becomes oppressive.

[ Edited: 12 January 2011 11:06 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 08:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2011-01-01

Yes indeed,,, men are better at beating up other people than women. They are also better paid for equal work than women…

One would think that when describeing ‘secularism’ the phrase “that women should be equal to men under the law” would be foremost, most tangible, and most consequential.

Men and women are not neccessarily ‘equal’ on all accounts (viva la diffrance). Some on this list I’m guessing and/or I don’t know how you would measure… But please,, help me out….

Women live longer than men.

Women have better social skills.

Women are better read.

Women are less violent.

Women are more mature.

Women are more generous.

Women see colors better.

Women have better hygiene.

Women spel beter.

I know there’s redundancy/overlap, but if it’s ok for gad to be redundant with the 10 commandments,,,,,,,,,,

[ Edited: 13 January 2011 08:39 AM by tirebiter4659 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

If you, tirebiter4659 or Write4U, wish to read a bit of anthropology and psychology (and history, Write4U) explaining the nature of the desert peoples, I am willing to discuss this. Until then, feel free to keep playing the armchair theorizing as much as you find desirable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 13 January 2011 08:50 AM

If you, tirebiter4659 or Write4U, wish to read a bit of anthropology and psychology (and history, Write4U) explaining the nature of the desert peoples, I am willing to discuss this. Until then, feel free to keep playing the armchair theorizing as much as you find desirable.

Well now, if I learn the full history and evolution of the desert people then I don’t need you, do I?
If you are expert on the subject, enlighten me.
At least point out the errors in my posit, so that I don’t need to spend 3 years of my life studying, only to find out that we disagree on something which could have been explained in a few minutes.

[ Edited: 13 January 2011 12:22 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Write4U - 13 January 2011 12:14 PM

If you are expert on the subject, enlighten me.

The problem with your posts is, Write4U, that as eloquently as they are written—yes, you do have a talent for writing, IMO—they are just nicely assembled words.

Take the following, for example:

Write4U - 12 January 2011 11:02 AM

However, when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture.

I have no idea what to respond to this. Are you trying to say that we evolve certain traits because we need to protect ourselves from the environment?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 13 January 2011 12:49 PM
Write4U - 13 January 2011 12:14 PM

If you are expert on the subject, enlighten me.

The problem with your posts is, Write4U, that as eloquently as they are written—yes, you do have a talent for writing, IMO—they are just nicely assembled words.

Take the following, for example:

Write4U - 12 January 2011 11:02 AM

However, when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture.

I have no idea what to respond to this. Are you trying to say that we evolve certain traits because we need to protect ourselves from the environment?

Thanks George for your kind words.

Now that I look at the sentence it is vague and too general. It was a “musing”... cheese

I don’t think we can say that in nature males are always the dominant species. There are social structures in nature where the female is the larger, more powerful, and the more dominant, and we also have human matriarchal societies.
Thus I concluded that the immediate environment must be at least partly responsible for the evolution of a specific male/female dominated society. It would follow that the establishment of a religion would reflect the traditions of such a society.
As I understand it Sparta was an absolutely male dominated society, where the island of Sappho was a female dominated society, their religious and social practices reflected that.
In a harsh, unforgiving environment as the desert, it seems natural that the male would be selected as the dominant warrior charged with protecting the family or tribe. Enters the Qu’ran, which recognized the male as the dominant partner in all respects, except perhaps for the actual household itself.
But our technological advances have made life considerably safer, even in the harshest environments. Therefore, the “need” for a male dominated society is no longer present and in principle any religion which insists on the status quo, has become “outdated”, morally and practically.
Thus the sentence, “when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture”.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 02:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Write4U - 13 January 2011 01:33 PM

But our technological advances have made life considerably safer, even in the harshest environments. Therefore, the “need” for a male dominated society is no longer present and in principle any religion which insists on the status quo, has become “outdated”, morally and practically.
Thus the sentence, “when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture”.

First, I am not so sure that our society is no longer dominated by men. Second, even if it were true, our society and that of the Middle East are very different. Third, we (the Western society) have gone through many centuries leading us to where we are today. You cannot just invade a different culture and expect them to adopt just because your way of life is suitable for you. Take, for example, the Native Indians and their problem with alcoholism or the high numbers of diabetes in the black population. It is much easier for the majority of people in our society (of European background) to drink booze and absorb our food, but it may not work for everybody else.

Some people might say the desert societies should recognize that our way of life is the better one and that they should recognize it and adopt. And maybe they will one day. But only those who can adopt will do so, the rest will die out. That is the sad fact of evolution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-12-25

believe it or not I think secularism is the best solution for countries suffering from terrorists groups , such as Pakistan and Afghanistan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 13 January 2011 02:23 PM
Write4U - 13 January 2011 01:33 PM

But our technological advances have made life considerably safer, even in the harshest environments. Therefore, the “need” for a male dominated society is no longer present and in principle any religion which insists on the status quo, has become “outdated”, morally and practically.
Thus the sentence, “when the environment is no longer the main threat to survival, there is no further need for clinging to 2000 year old (outdated) scripture”.

First, I am not so sure that our society is no longer dominated by men. Second, even if it were true, our society and that of the Middle East are very different. Third, we (the Western society) have gone through many centuries leading us to where we are today. You cannot just invade a different culture and expect them to adopt just because your way of life is suitable for you. Take, for example, the Native Indians and their problem with alcoholism or the high numbers of diabetes in the black population. It is much easier for the majority of people in our society (of European background) to drink booze and absorb our food, but it may not work for everybody else.

Some people might say the desert societies should recognize that our way of life is the better one and that they should recognize it and adopt. And maybe they will one day. But only those who can adopt will do so, the rest will die out. That is the sad fact of evolution.

Generally we are in agreement. And I certainly agree that change should not come by force, but by reason, which takes time.

An interesting aside.  It was explained to me once, that the Native American penchant for alcohol is not reflective of alcoholism per se, but due to a lower tolerance of alcohol, causing a more or less “spiritual experience”, rather than just a “happy intoxication. This is due to a genetic dominant right brain orientation in Native Americans, rather than the dominant left brain as in Europeans. This also accounts for the traditional use of peyote in religious ceremonies. Of course we cannot rule out the abject poverty of some Natives, leading to “escapism”, but that is not unique to Natives .
I am not sure of the validity of this reasoning, but having worked for and with several tribes, I have known many individuals who voluntarily avoided alcohol, as a dangerous and unpredictable “spiritual ally” (in the words of Carlos Castaneda).

(EDIT)
From Wiki,

The Hopi Prophecy Rock clearly depicts three “two-heart” individuals. A two-hearted person is one who thinks with his head rather than his heart. This is in reference to the left-brain function of analytical thinking. A person who think with his heart usese the right-brain function of intuitive thinking. Currently modern man is out of balance because we live in a left brained dominated society. We place more emphasis on left-brain modes of thinking vs. right-brain modes of thought

[ Edited: 14 January 2011 12:46 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2011 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Write4U - 13 January 2011 05:23 PM

And I certainly agree that change should not come by force, but by reason, which takes time.

Except for reason being the product of the change, not its cause.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1