From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: religion and violence (was Re: Hindu-Muslim violence)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:09:47 GMT

======================================================
 esti@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I doubt that any cause has a monopoly on warfare, bloodshed, and
>riots.  However, as I look over world history, it seems that the most
>extreme and systematic violence has been carried out in the name of
>some absolute cause, one that is its own justification. 
>----[delete]--------
>But personally, I don't make much distinction between such absolute
>causes.  They all have one thing in common-- they are immune to
>contrary arguments...................
>
>So, I go along with Alok...
>>>Solution to avoid religious
>>>bloodshed or riots is to try to understand each other's religion and faith
>>>by means of dialogue and sharing, not by becoming an atheist.
>
>No one says it'll be easy, but the only alternative I see is eternal
>warfare between incompatible groups, all convinced of their own
>righteousness.  

 Having argued against all forms of absolutism in your post, Paul, aren't
 you also falling in the same trap here? - by agreeing that the only
 alternative to "understanding each other's faith by dialogue and sharing
 without being an atheist" is "eternal warfare between incompatible groups."

 Perhaps, reading between the lines you post, I would guess that you were
 attempting to emphasize "dialogue and understanding and mutual respect."
 Were you? If not, then I very much disagree.

 I also argue and support safeguards against any form of "forced absolutism."
 Neither should god be forced down any one's throat/mind; nor should atheism
 be forced down any one's throat/mind. Each individual should be left to
 himself/herself to choose and decide, and enjoy consequences of their
 choice/decision.
 
 Dialogue is good if both parties want to have a dialogue. But sometimes
 dialogues lead to destruction - the death of Socrates after the historical
 dialogue, for example. Dialogues can easily fuel the spark/fire. Dialogue
 is not same as understanding. Dialogue is just the forum. Within
 the forum parties should be able to communicate. And understand each other.
 Communication is a rare art, and so is reason and good will. Now if faith
 is what is being discussed, well I really can't conceptualize that 
 communication and reason will prevail (For religions/faiths in particular
 build on the premiss of mere beliefs/non-reason). Therefore, in these 
 (and similar) situations - dialogues are not what peace needs. Peace 
 needs fundamental protection, like the way minorities are constitutionally
 protected here in USA. 

 Furthermore, even if dialogue leads to understanding, this doesn't
 necessarily mean that mutual respect would be the final result. For example,
 I have had extended debates with socialists, but I don't respect socialism
 and socialists. I leave them alone, for sure, because they have every right
 to contrary beliefs. Much like the way Voltaire said - I do not respect what
 you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say that. To give
 you another example, if a hindu brahmin argues about why society should be 
 split into castes and why the chamaar (the untouchables) should be denied the
 opportunities for brahmins - atleast I would have extreme disrespect for the
 brahmin. Hypocrisy and irrationality can not be tolerated ad infinitum. Yes,
 the brahmin can go live his/her life - but I would refuse to interfere if 
 his life/health/peace goes down the tube. His life or death is meaningless to
 me. I have better things to enjoy and live for. Both, these examples are out
 of my life. I met such a brahmin about ten years ago near Delhi. So, I am not
 hypothesizing.

 In summary, respect needs more than understanding which in turn needs more
 than dialogues. 

 Coming back to your alternative - "understand each other's faith by dialogue
 and sharing," seems nothing more than wishful to me, for reasons stated above.
 There are other alternatives. The one that has worked well here in US, is to
 separate the state and religion; and constitutionally protect the minorities
 of all types/reasons. Protection needs feasibility of force. I am reminded
 of the FBI sting in Montana with a white supermacist group recently. 
 Another more interesting solution seems to be the feasibility of free 
 migration all over the globe. Individuals who feel sick and tired of
 threat/culture of one place could move on to nations more compatible with
 their needs and beliefs. 

 Another alternative that you seem to discount away is "atheism by choice." 
 This alternative has worked well for me. Having attempted to know what faith
 really means, having quized fathers/priests about the fundamental premisses 
 of religion, having understood what followers of different faiths have done
 to non-believers, having spent substantial effort to get to the roots...etc.
 I have found it but natural for myself to be an atheist. I now focus myself
 on questions, problems, challenges and journeys that begin with me as the
 starting point. I do something because I am curious and I want to do that.
 I don't need a faith to discover what is good. And I don't need a faith
 to be good. Being good is a genuine source of happiness. Questions are my
 only source, thought is my only means, and reason is my only absolute. The
 end, of course, is my happiness.

 But then, each human is unique. What works for me, may not work for you or
 for others. So, discover yourself. And do what you want to do.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian