From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: religion and violence 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:53:14 GMT

Some minor comments on both T.Y.  (> >) and Paul (>) :

> Yes, I was attempting to stress the usefulnesss of taking a moderate
> course, as opposed to taking a course which makes one feel
> self-righteous but which escalates the violence.  No, I did not mean
> to imply that there are only two alternatives, "eternal warfare
> between incompatible groups" and "understanding each other's faith by
> dialogue and sharing and without being an atheist".

The second is not an alternative but a mechanism to come to the second
alternative: peace among people of various religious faiths including
atheists.

> First of all, it's the dialogue and openness that's key; atheism in
> and of itself doesn't matter one way or the other. 

Agreed.

> Secondly, no, it's not that there is such a simple binary choice
> between war and understanding.

I would correct that to 'choice between war and peace'.

> > 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. 

Yes dialogues can fuel the spark/fire if they are not carried out
professionally. However it is the person dialoguing who is at fault in such
cases. It is not the 'concept of dialogue to achieve understanding' at fault.
Also the price of not having a dialogue is much more severe than having one
in most cases. (Socrates may be an exception).

> > Dialogue is not same as understanding. Dialogue is just the forum. 

Nobody said dialogue is same as understanding. Dialogue is not a forum,
it a mechanism to communicate: it is a form of communication.

> > Within the forum parties should be able to communicate and understand 
> > each other.

Provided they keep emotions and egos under check. Understanding is not a
necessary outcome of a dialogue. However understanding may be achieved
by dialogue.

> > Communication is a rare art, and so is reason and good will. Now if faith

Reason makes the communication objective. Good will makes the communication
subjective. Both reason and good will enhance the quality of communication.

> > 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 

Here is the fallacy in your system of beliefs. Your assumption that
faith/religion can not be discussed rationally is flawed. Faith and religion
can be discussed and understood within rational boundaries. In fact that is
exactly what we were doing on this group before the Ayodhya events 
broke the flow.

> > (and similar) situations - dialogues are not what peace needs. 

I disagree. Dialogue is very important to achieve peace.

> > Peace needs fundamental protection, like the way minorities are 
> > constitutionally protected here in USA. 

You have now mixed the majority-minority interaction with interaction among
people of various religions and faiths.

The two problems are not synonymous.

BTW what minority are you talking: racial minority or religious minority
or linguistic minority or sexual minority or minority of sexual orientation ?
There are minorities of various kind. Minorities vary geographically.
what is a minority in one place may be a majority in another place.

I am a religious minority in USA. I don't really feel protected even though
the US constitution allows for practice of various religions. I am a HIndu
and I notice verbal or other forms of aggression on Hinduism quite
often in this country. I also witness attacks on Jews etc.
Racial minorities like Blacks have been targets of a variety of atrocities
even though it is constitutionally prohibited. Linguistic minorities like
HIspanics have been targets too. 

What good is a piece of legislation if the people don't put tolerance into
practice. It is that which I mentioned. In order to have real peace among
various types of majorities and minorities, dialogue is essential. Dialogue
should further be enhanced by action, which I refered as 'sharing'.

Religious minorities are constitutionally protected even in India, yet
the people of various religions themselves may not be at peace. 

Just constitutional legislations are not good enough for achieving peace.

> > 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.

If you hadn't had dialogue with them , you would have found yourself not
leaving them alone but disgracing them, just as you have been disgracing
those who believe in God and want to have some religious faith.
I am being presumtious here but your discussion on this issue started
with 'condemnation of religion' and 'proclamation of atheism as the ideal'.
However as dialogue with others on the net went on, you became somewhat
tempered saying to the effect 'let the people of religion and atheism not 
impose on each other' - something to which I agreed.

This tempered viewpoint and subsequent agreement was a result of a dialogue.
Yes, we may not respect each other as yet, but we moved an inch closer.
I hope :-)

> >  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

That is nothing but a defense of freedom of speech.

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

Yes, I agree to that. However let's not discount the value of dialogue
just because it does not lead to understanding or respect all the times.

Dialogue and sharing remain the most pursuasive mechanism for stable peace.
People may have achieved temporary peace by using force, army, rules,
curfews etc. But nothing beats the dialogues and sharing. Even good 
legislations are a consequence of dialogue and sharing a common concern.

> > 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.
> 
Sure it is wishful, but it is the only way for a stable peace. Suppressing
faith by use of force or legislation is certainly not the way.

Communists have tried that in USSR, China etc. It has failed.
Indian government is trying that in India currently. It is bound to fail.

> > 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. 
> 

Separation of state and religion is good policy. However it once again does 
not guarantee a stable peace among people of various religions living in
that state. Even though state and religion are separate in USA, yet, religious
strife and disharmony exists and results in sizable number of crimes every
year. Religious lobbies drive many senators and congressmen to pass
a variety of legislations or appointment of justices. One reason why USA has 
not faced any mass religious strife is the relative non-existence of 
religious minorities in this country. If one were to breakdown US in
religious terms: one would find mostly Christians (of various sub-faiths).
Other major religions of the world: Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Sikh, even Jewish
are relatively insignificant in numbers. Largest religious minority, I suppose
would be Jewish. However Jewish and Christian religions are quite close
in dogma and doctrine. So let me say USA is mostly (98% may not be an
exaggeration) Judeo-Christian, religiously speaking. World's other major
religions which comprise of almost 50 %  of the world's population are hardly
present here in USA. This insignificant presence has kept the situation in 
control, not the separation of state and religion.

> The U.S. was founded on concepts like these... which are really just
> institutionalized versions of "tolerate everything except
> intolerance".  Oh, certainly the U.S. (or anyone trying to follow this
> rule) will fall short of the ideal goal, and there are lots of grey
> areas (having a school "moment of silence for meditation or prayer"
> seems pretty innocuous to me, but it was declared unconstitutional due
> to the word "prayer"), but it's still a goal well worth striving for.
> 
> > 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. 

This utopian view (similar to John Lennon) is great in words but one wonders
whether it makes practical sense. Even if free movement was allowed across
the globe, power groups will form in certain areas for certain things.
There will always be minorities. There will always be suppression of minorities.
Only difference being that these suppressed minoritiesd will now be able to 
move away from the area of suppression. Suppression, crime etc will still
remain. 

Freedom of Movement is a step in right direction, but it is NOT enough.

> Hmm.  Interesting idea.  Certainly there are still economic
> considerations, but aside from that I'd certainly have to agree on
> principle, though it'd be interesting to see what would happen in
> practice.  It always confused me when a country forbade some hated
> minority from exiting the country, be it Huguenots from France, Jews
> from USSR, or whatever.  Forcing all immigration to be accepted, on
> the other hand, could be pretty chaotic.
> 
Yes Global Freedom of Movement could lead to chaos, as long as several 
decades until the nations have developed appropriate mechanisms to keep 
things orderly.

> > 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.
> >

Fine. You have a right to be atheist. I don't think anybody is trying to
convert you. (You have not mentioned to the contrary) 

> > 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.
> 

Great. Thanks for the preaching. 

Alok
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian