• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Implications of Logic versus Faith in Modern Society

Status
Not open for further replies.

KRS

Well-known member
Please read this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...spect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html

Riots have broken out in Calcutta on the publication of these articles by Statesman which originally appeared in England. How can in a democratic society this type of action by the authorities who jailed the publisher take place, instead os arresting and throwing the rioters in jail? Democracy, Free Speech and behaviour towards other people based on logic and reason should rule. Not the goondaism whose purpose is to silence any criticism/comment. This lends a way for politics to be played cynically, catering to vote bank politics.

While Islam is particularly in the grip of people who think that cutting off an infidel's head, just for being an 'infidel', as 'Godly' act, more and more of our own religious brethrern in response to these types of mindless happenings are also foraying in to this aspect of social life.

Whose business is it to tell others what to wear, where to dance, what holiday to observe etc.? These morons of Rama Sena and their ilk should be banned.

It is so weird in modern times, we still punish a person for 'arousing' dirty thoughts in a person's mind and not the person with free will who allows not only those thoughts to creep in to his/her mind, but also acts upon them! Punish the rape victim and not the raper - she deserves it!

This whole approach to societal living is based on an assumption that a human being left to his/her own devices is rotten and evil.

By the way, shame on those Calcutta authorities who are muffling free speech in the interest of 'protecting' religious sentiments.

Regards,
KRS
 
S

s007bala

Guest
The “savages” of India

“Christianity offers nothing that is not already available somewhere in the many forms of Hinduism. Hinduism never rejected the teachings of Jesus. Those who have converted either agreed with a gun pressed at their skulls as in Goa, or because it provided an escape from caste tyranny, as well as a guaranteed professional advancement. Through its Vedic legacy, Hinduism respects all faiths. It clearly states that God is one, but has many forms. The Christian message must sound preposterous: that God is indeed one, but has only one recognized form, his son. The “savages” of India were sophisticated - so sophisticated that the imperialist mixture of church and state in Europe could not grasp such sophistication….”

http://kanchikamakoti.blogspot.com/search/label/Articles

sb
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
I started this thread to discuss the role of blind faith and muffling of free speech, not to harangue over any other religion on the basis of mataphysics.

I do not want discussions to be hijacked. The above poster has started hundred zillion other threads in this Forum where he can continue his thoughts about Christianity and Islam and any other religion.

My question to you all is: Where should a civic society begin and where should religion stop intruding in that society, in a multi cultural environment?

Regards,
KRS
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Sir,

i suppose there are 2 kinds of ppl.

One is the kind that believes in free speech based on reason and logic. They can go a step ahead of voltaire, in ensuring that they will not only defend the other's person's right to say it, but will also ensure the other person has a righful place under the sun, while at the same time agreeing to disagree with his words. They beleive in transformation, not destruction.

The other is the kind that beleives in 'free wheeling' in the name of free speech to make the business of politics out of religion. This kind will stoop to any extent to retain their biz. Naturally, they need divisiveness for their entity to thrive. So, they will keep trying to ensure that the other person has no righful place under the sun. They beleive in destruction, not transformation.

The likes of Ram Sene do not know Ram, but they are out to propagate and preserve dharma in the name of Ram. They fight for dharma without knowing dharma. They are a shame to hindu faith.

I do think politics in the name of religion should be banned.

Religion is personal and private. We build temples, perform prayers at home, meet others in a satsang, sing bhajans together, bond with one another, seek teachers and philosphers to explain the nuances of life and spirit, and enjoy various cultures. We do not seek to intrude and make decisions for others.

Perhaps religion shd stop intruding in a multi-cultural society the very minute it is considered "intruding" on someone else's freedom of choice.
 
S

s007bala

Guest
'sb' - the hijacker LOL

Shri KRS

>>I started this thread to discuss the role of blind faith and muffling of free speech, not to harangue over any other religion on the basis of mataphysics.<<

First i will get educated about mataphysics or maybe spelling error by you,and then discuss faith in society.Faith means religions,incidentally,at least in context with Valentine celeberation and Rama Sene incident in Mangalore!!Logic is only a tool,to stabilise faith,as faith can exist without logic.

>>I do not want discussions to be hijacked. The above poster has started hundred zillion other threads in this Forum where he can continue his thoughts about Christianity and Islam and any other religion.<<

One should give respect and take respect.The last i checked the guidelines,there is no set defined limits for posts.This is a forum,why are you afraid to debate?in a civilised manner?.Especially with me,knowing how well you have been debating in the past,with various individuals.What is my crime?

>>My question to you all is: Where should a civic society begin and where should religion stop intruding in that society, in a multi cultural environment?<<

In a multi-cultural environment,religion should be a purely a private affair of like minded people.Since we cannot go to the beginning of our religion,ie Sanathana Dharma,aka Hinduism,lets talk about present day situation,and how to create amity & peace.

sb
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Faith Vs Religion:

Religion is bound by beliefs, rules and regulations, many times without making space for the other.

Religions tend to be based on a set of fundamentals. Every single religion whether it be hindu, christian, islam, sikhism, jainism, buddhism, judaism, zorashtrianism, has its own set of beliefs that its adherents are expected to live upto.

A strictly relgious person may (and often tend to) lean towards fundamentalist behavior.

Faith comes from the heart. It often makes space for the other and accepts the other with their follies or short-comings. It allows the self to liken to what comes instinctively to them, rather than adhere to what is expected of them.
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Are we searching for perfection here?

There has always been and always will be an entwining of free speech and its opposition (be it religion or otherwise)...

The concept of free speech itself gives validity to such opposition... but yes, certainly not to riots... who to blame? society? politics? politicians? I simply say, it is the nature of things... Who can put a limit to one's passion or emotion? Mind is such a delicate thing that needs careful handling...

There are many factors that come into play - I guess the primal reason being survival... probably some time ago, mankind found out that the best way to survive is to be together... for this togetherness, we need a common link... it probably just started with people living together... as the ages progressed, it culminated with religion.

Are we now delinked with religion? The answer is a firm NO. So, there lies the answer. We are struggling to break through, yet cannot leave our instincts for that has what has helped us all through... In a way, it helps us even now....

The world is predominantly religious-conscious. Hence, it naturally follows that one's free speech that goes agains one religion is bound to flare up emotions.

It could be easy to state that to be truly secular, we have to be neutral to all religions... yes, I accept that - but only in theory. In reality, multi-level forces continue to hack away the fabric of our culture here. The cruel replies by hindu outfits is a backlash of such actions.

I do not believe in condemning just for the sake of it. If hindu retaliation is to be curbed, first stop the nonsense in the name of other religions. Then I accept it as a truly secular state. But that, am afraid, can never happen. Let us be practical.

Hence free speech has its limitations - just as "your freedom ends where my nose begins"... the problem is that it is the freedom of expression which we are talking about. And there can be no clear demarcation of where one's freedom really begins and ends... (the most obvious governing factor seems to be religion)

How many are not influenced by friends and society?

How many adolescents can hold their own against a degrading society?

How many can remain "modern" and yet give value to cultures?

Outward exhibitions certainly do have an impact on thinking of the other... it may lead to behavioural changes as well... it is welcomed by those who see no harm in it or by the covetous, but seen as a threat by those who wish to retain a cultural identity.

It is just that, for a moral fabric to hold good, there has to be certain detaining factors... a certain amount of restriction has to be had... but where should the dividing line be? Not easy...

It is a double-edged sword.

Regards,
Seshadri
 
S

s007bala

Guest
How does one build faith in modern society?Don't individuals with unflinching faith,for a particular doctrine or dogma,become either, organised religion or dis-organised religion.What comes instinctively to ones-self,does he or she keeps that revealation to only himself/herself?More often than not,people proselytise, with good intention of propagating,their revealed truth.At least historical evidence based on logic viz faith leads us to believe.
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Just adding on here:

It untimately boils down to how subtle the expression is... as an analogy I recall the movie "Kattradhu Tamizh"... towards the end, the person who commits several brutal murders attributes it to the flaunting exhibited by the haves... and says that in a society that has a huge gap between the haves and have-nots, it is but natural for the have-nots to become instigated...

Sounds ominously like communism... but to a certain extent, it is what is driving the society here... quick money, easy life... why not kill, if it could satisfy my yearning?

Similarly, free expression also must have its boundaries, else it could trigger of reactions that we see now...

Regards
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Faith speaks out about what it feels, but it does not say 'toe my line'.

Religion (together with its so-called unflinching "faith" which is not actually faith but ego of belief in its doctrines and dogmas), on the other hand requires a person to toe its line. Therein lies the diff.
 
Last edited:

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
One can define faith in so many different ways... what is interference to one seems a necessity to another...

What is logic? It is but a state of perception... What is logical to one may be illogical to another... the same goes for faith... we all brand it in different ways to suit our views...

Ultimately, the views of a few has to be sacrificed to adhere to the society and the country as a whole... this is raja dharma... it has been emphasised by chanakya also...

And if we take a poll in our country on conservatism vs free expression, I guess the former still would win... hands down... That is what matters now...
 

tbs

Well-known member
Faith speaks out of what it feels, but it does not say 'toe my line'.

Religion (together with its so-called unflinching "faith" which is not actually faith but ego of belief in its doctrines and dogmas), on the other hand requires a person to toe its line. Therein lies the diff.
hi HH
i think faith and religion..both are vague feelings....both are 2 sides of same coin..

regards
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear Srimathi HappyHandu Ji,

Very erudite response. Free speech should always be used for constructive purposes. Sometimes it is used to hurt others' beliefs unnecessarily. But the difference between 'free speech 'and 'religious sentiment' always seem to be the former atops at speech, the latter goes in to violence. But then in lots of societies, 'free speech' is regulated by local obscenity laws, which is okay. Because people through legal means have every right to define and agree on what constitutes obscenity.

Again, we are seeing the danger of trying to define what obscinity is. When such laws exist (as in India), such a word which lends itself to a variety of interpretations is being used to muffle real freedom of thought and speech.

A religion that does not allow questioning both from within and without can not survive. Similarly a religion that imposes it's own beliefs on other religions (like Sharia, like cow slaughter etc.) in the modern world, will also not promote 'we are one' attitude and feeling.

Our forefathers understood that all opinions and thoughts must be allowed to be expressed and analyzed. Even atheism was allowed to exist. Our ancient civilization was great because of this important civic code.

Today, we are losing this aspect. In our frustration towards the never ending march of modernity, we want to use whatever means to go back to our 'culture'. Who defines 'our culture'? Culture evolves constantly. And in a legal society, there are laws. And anyone is welcome to contest 'free speech' in the courts, not through goondaism.

Regards,
KRS
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
And if we take a poll in our country on conservatism vs free expression, I guess the former still would win... hands down..

I dunno if logic is a state of perception. The art and science of valid inference has been described in several ways. But anyways, reg the poll mentioned above, i wud think free expression is more likely to win hands down..
 
S

s007bala

Guest
If faith speaks out what one feels,logically, everyone will not feel the same way,therefore not speak the same way.Therefore multitude of faiths.Which is the reality in society today.Faith develops as a collective group of people with similiar or identical,thought process or belief systems,in a saathvic manner or in a asuric fashion,where people are terrorised to yield,thru their convulted logic.

In numbers,some faiths see,power and domination.When there is established faith like Hinduism in India,there is also a cultural identity tagged with hindus.Even in our hindu way of life,expression of love to loved ones has been allowed,and is continuing to be expressed.Only when people are insecure,that there is a move towards alien behavioural norms,then sporadic incidents of violence erupt.Some capitalise on issues like these for their own vested interest.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
People being terrorised to yield thru convulted logic comes under the ambit of 'religion' (from its doctrinal set of beliefs), not faith.

Faith need not be logical. It does not expect everyone to feel the same way. On the contrary, it accepts others' ways. Faith more likely tends to be instinctive.

It accepts others ways because it understands each person is wired differently. That is why there are so many sampradayas. There is no one method that works for all.
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear Sri SS Ji,

My reponse in red:


Are we searching for perfection here?

There has always been and always will be an entwining of free speech and its opposition (be it religion or otherwise)...
'Free speech' is defined by a society - I agree.

The concept of free speech itself gives validity to such opposition... but yes, certainly not to riots... who to blame? society? politics? politicians? I simply say, it is the nature of things... Who can put a limit to one's passion or emotion? Mind is such a delicate thing that needs careful handling...
So, it is alright for one to kill? Let us say a so called honor killing? Don't understand your point here. Of course one can not put a muffler on an individual's passion or emotion. The question is whether they are allowed to act outside of the law.

There are many factors that come into play - I guess the primal reason being survival... probably some time ago, mankind found out that the best way to survive is to be together... for this togetherness, we need a common link... it probably just started with people living together... as the ages progressed, it culminated with religion.

Are we now delinked with religion? The answer is a firm NO. So, there lies the answer. We are struggling to break through, yet cannot leave our instincts for that has what has helped us all through... In a way, it helps us even now....
Who is talking about getting 'de-linked' with religion? I am talking about the boundary of a religion in a civic society.

The world is predominantly religious-conscious. Hence, it naturally follows that one's free speech that goes agains one religion is bound to flare up emotions.
I am sorry, this is exactly the kind of 'logic' that promotes intolerance. How can words 'hurt'? Only words from dear ones can hurt because of the emotions involved. Are we so much living in religion that we can not ignore a mindless person's words?

It could be easy to state that to be truly secular, we have to be neutral to all religions... yes, I accept that - but only in theory. In reality, multi-level forces continue to hack away the fabric of our culture here. The cruel replies by hindu outfits is a backlash of such actions.
Same argument you made in a different posting. If you think your 'cultural fabric' is being hacked away (I don't know what you mean by this - can you elaborate?) then do the positive things that reinforces that culture from within. Muzzling a speech by an other person is not it.

I do not believe in condemning just for the sake of it. If hindu retaliation is to be curbed, first stop the nonsense in the name of other religions. Then I accept it as a truly secular state. But that, am afraid, can never happen. Let us be practical.
So are you advocating taking the law in to your own hands? What is the 'nonsense' in the name of other religions?

Hence free speech has its limitations - just as "your freedom ends where my nose begins"... the problem is that it is the freedom of expression which we are talking about. And there can be no clear demarcation of where one's freedom really begins and ends... (the most obvious governing factor seems to be religion)
You are exactly proving my point.

How many are not influenced by friends and society?

How many adolescents can hold their own against a degrading society?

How many can remain "modern" and yet give value to cultures?
What is a 'degrading' society? What is 'modern' that is not giving 'value' to 'cultures'? What is 'culture' and what is not, in your opinion?

Outward exhibitions certainly do have an impact on thinking of the other... it may lead to behavioural changes as well... it is welcomed by those who see no harm in it or by the covetous, but seen as a threat by those who wish to retain a cultural identity.
Again are you arguing for the 'right' of a rapist in my anaology? What 'cultural' identity one wishes to retain. Can you give examples?

It is just that, for a moral fabric to hold good, there has to be certain detaining factors... a certain amount of restriction has to be had... but where should the dividing line be? Not easy...
But sir, it is my contention that no one can 'impose' a moral fabric. 'moral fabric' of a society evolves over time and can not be that easily espunged. One needs to understand to differentiate between what is outside in appearance and what is inside.

It is a double-edged sword.
Free speech and democracy are not double edged swords. They are the lynchpins of a modern society that will continuously evolve.

Regards,
KRS

Regards,
Seshadri
 
S

s007bala

Guest
coin

Faith & Religion are two sides of a coin.One cannot differentiate,as the blurring line is vague.So,society chugs along with clear mandated laws,instead.

Bringing into context with the thread initiator about goondaism,from his view point is correct.But when one is personally affected either emotionally or materially,then the impotent anger,beomes a mobocracy.

USA has its own KKK,white supramacist gangs,bikers gangs,drug gang...etc and now may i daresay political neo-con gangs,who ruined the peace of the nation.How many are inside jails or getting prosecuted?Sure actions are being taken,as in any civilised country where laws are not only passed but implemeneted also.

While India is no super-power,but amongst comity of nations,she is a gem neverthless.

This is no personal attack on anybody.These are just my opinion.

sb
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
:)

Nice.

i suppose the blurring line b/w faith and religion becomes vague when one understands neither..then there is a world beyond faith, philosophies, language and mind...
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear Sri SS Ji,

I am surprised you would look at two things at different ends of the spectrum and come to the same conclusion. Whether a nihilist or not if a human being kills, irrespective what the other person does, we put that person away. Murder is murder. Speech is just speech. One need not listen or read or see what is offensive to him/her. Seems to me such a person is intentionally waiting to have his/her feelings hurt. You seem to say such a reaction is perfectly fine. In addition to all the moral issues, this attitude will surely lead to anarchy.

Your not seeing the difference is quite scary. This does not bode well for the promotion of a civic society in India.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
KRS



Just adding on here:

It untimately boils down to how subtle the expression is... as an analogy I recall the movie "Kattradhu Tamizh"... towards the end, the person who commits several brutal murders attributes it to the flaunting exhibited by the haves... and says that in a society that has a huge gap between the haves and have-nots, it is but natural for the have-nots to become instigated...

Sounds ominously like communism... but to a certain extent, it is what is driving the society here... quick money, easy life... why not kill, if it could satisfy my yearning?

Similarly, free expression also must have its boundaries, else it could trigger of reactions that we see now...

Regards
 
S

s007bala

Guest
re

:)

Nice.

i suppose the blurring line b/w faith and religion becomes vague when one understands neither..then there is a world beyond faith, philosophies, language and mind...

T R A N C E D E N T A L

sb
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Dear Sesh (me taking liberty of friendly addressing since am certain you will not mind (you are around my age)),

How many are not influenced by friends and society?

Have had all sorts of friends since adolosecence, including a few deviants. Not many have succeeded in influencing the other, though the attempts to do so exist (esp when we think / presume that we are trying to help the other person in making a better life). That one hangs out with the other for pleasure of their company does not mean they need to succeed in influencing the other in any way at all.

How many adolescents can hold their own against a degrading society?

Haven't we all held our own, no matter what we have seen or known in a society? But i do not understand a 'degrading society'.

How many can remain "modern" and yet give value to cultures?

i dunno what is 'modern' - i suppose its about being progressive (?). am not sure i understand 'giving value to cultures' either, it wud seem to me that it is about respecting and accepting the other's culture (?).
 

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Shri KRSji,

So, it is alright for one to kill? Let us say a so called honor killing? Don't understand your point here. Of course one can not put a muffler on an individual's passion or emotion. The question is whether they are allowed to act outside of the law.
I am not concluding, rather emphasising the nature of things here... I dont think India has a law on cultural identities... yes certainly, they are not allowed to act outside the law... what am stressing here is that illegitimate situations are natural; it just depends on the situation...

But you are extrapolating here - The act by itself (here killing) is seen as justice in certain cases and a murder in others... So, does it gain sanctity if it is imposed in the name of justice? I think no one can generalize whether killing is good or bad...


Who is talking about getting 'de-linked' with religion? I am talking about the boundary of a religion in a civic society.
How can there be boundaries when religion is defined as a way of living?

I am sorry, this is exactly the kind of 'logic' that promotes intolerance. How can words 'hurt'? Only words from dear ones can hurt because of the emotions involved. Are we so much living in religion that we can not ignore a mindless person's words?
People simply do not react to a mindless person's words... if that had been the case, we would have only riots all around, for there is no dearth of MPs (mindless persons) in India. It is only when they perceive a hidden threat, that reactions arise.

Same argument you made in a different posting. If you think your 'cultural fabric' is being hacked away (I don't know what you mean by this - can you elaborate?) then do the positive things that reinforces that culture from within. Muzzling a speech by an other person is not it.
Probably, I have not changed my view yet...:)... and hence the likeness... You see, any t, d and h can say something, but yet get away under the guise of free expression... agreed, it is the constitutional right and one can be positive and all that... If my neighbour is constantly harassing me with mindless words, I can only tolerate for a certain period...

So are you advocating taking the law in to your own hands? What is the 'nonsense' in the name of other religions?
Yes, I would advocate that... in the current scenario.

What is a 'degrading' society? What is 'modern' that is not giving 'value' to 'cultures'? What is 'culture' and what is not, in your opinion?
A society that does not respect its inborn culture is a degrading one...

Anything that does display outwardly disrespect for the culture is " not giving value to cultures"...

There is a separate thread on culture and brahmins where I had tried to express my views on culture...

Again are you arguing for the 'right' of a rapist in my anaology? What 'cultural' identity one wishes to retain. Can you give examples?
Am not arguing for anybody here... just stating why it happens... Me writing on this forum about any rights is not gonna alter anything.

But sir, it is my contention that no one can 'impose' a moral fabric. 'moral fabric' of a society evolves over time and can not be that easily espunged. One needs to understand to differentiate between what is outside in appearance and what is inside.
How does it evolve without being imposed... you see, that is the fundamental error in your premise... You set a rule or an act or a policy and then refine it over time... So impositions are but natural... It is the reaction and feedback which refines it over time.

For the one who opposes it is an imposition, for one who agrees, it is a matter of consensus...

It is a double-edged sword.
Free speech and democracy are not double edged swords. They are the lynchpins of a modern society that will continuously evolve.
I meant free expression and religion.

Thanks,
Seshadri
 
Last edited:

Seshadri Subramaniam

Well-known member
Dear Sri SS Ji,

I am surprised you would look at two things at different ends of the spectrum and come to the same conclusion. Whether a nihilist or not if a human being kills, irrespective what the other person does, we put that person away. Murder is murder. Speech is just speech. One need not listen or read or see what is offensive to him/her. Seems to me such a person is intentionally waiting to have his/her feelings hurt. You seem to say such a reaction is perfectly fine. In addition to all the moral issues, this attitude will surely lead to anarchy.

Your not seeing the difference is quite scary. This does not bode well for the promotion of a civic society in India.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
KRS

Anarchy it is....

Am sorry, but there has to be a certain restraint in expressing too... just because one is affluent does not augur well to flaunt the same excessively... You me or anybody can never change the psyche... I am not advocating it by saying so, rather it is a variable that one should always remember...

Regards,
Seshadri
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks