From: sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: The Qadiani/non-Qadiani war. Ceasefire ? Please.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:07:22 GMT
	<2031@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: Software Development, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.pakistan: 9-Apr-92 Re: The
Qadiani/non-Qadiani.. Farooq Butt@mrbt.sw.stra (2507)
> In article <sdso0Y200WAoQ1r0lw@andrew.cmu.edu> sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai) writes:
...a long article putting down "organized" religion deleted...
Pillai-jee: 
> I concur that arguments of Ahmadiya/vs. non-Ahmadiya are pretty much
> futile BUT much of your article seems to be a blatant "secular,
> humanist" anti-religion diatribe.  While I do not like fanatacism in
> any area of human endavor, I part company with you when you claim that
> "organized religion" is wholly bad.  In fact, "organized" religion has
> been one of the greatest, if not THE greatest civilizing force of
> mankind.  True, that religious conflicts have led to much
> "khoon-kharaba" BUT I would very strongly contend that such conflicts
> are part and parcel of being HUMAN, if we don't kill each other over
> religion, then there's always food, money, women, men, children,
> golden idols... etc.  Given this sad background, scapegoating religion
> seems a tad disingenuous to me.  Humans are vicious and that 
> is a fundamental part of our nature.  When we feel threatend, we 
> attack.  Just view all the extremely nasty and insulting 
> articles recently posted here making fun of people's holy scriptures/
> persons.


Diatribe? I didn't realize I had rubbed it in that much, but anyway ...
It is hard to choose the exact phrase always, but the general idea when
I chose the catch-all phrase of "publicly organized religion" was to
denounce the kind of religion with organizations which assign membership
labels, some of the supposed elite assume positions of religious or
secular authority over others etc. and not really against social
interaction in religion or public discussion of religion or religion as
a social activity - mullahs getting together to play gulli-danda or
whatever. :-) Virtually all cases of such "organized religions" are
examples of authority with few checks and balances - the faith component
of religion being quite useful in the suppression of rational objections
to abuse of power derived from authority, and custodians of few such
"organized religions" have desisted in "intolerantly" imposing their
ideas on others - and here, I include Hinduism too despite its
much-vaunted scriptural ideas of tolerance. Hopefully, I have clarified
what I was trying to convey by my assertion of the "folly of publicly
organized religion".
And again, I never intended to paint a black-and-white picture of
anything as "wholly bad" and I don't really think I did either. As a
rule, nothing is wholly bad - Imam Jafry may be the exception which
proves the rule. :-)
And yes, religion, both organized and disorganized :-), has been a great
civilizing force, and then again, it has also been a great uncivilizing
force as well. There are arguments on both sides of the fence, most of
which I am sure you are familiar with as well and since this doesn't
really belong on s.c.p., but on talk.religion or something, I guess we
can agree to disagree as to which of the arguments are stronger.
___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
Office: UCC 181	Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]

Remember: Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan