Yesterday a close friend and I were discussing Taslima Nasreen.
The Bangladeshi writer was attacked last week in Hyderabad during the press release of the Telugu version of her book ‘Shodh’. Headlines now are screaming out about the fact that the police have lodged a case against her under section 153 (A) of IPC for:
“promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.”
This, while her attackers, the MIM were caught on TV throwing whatever they could get their hands on at the press release at her, making live statements on TV stating that she should be “beheaded” or that she “would be killed” if she ever came to Hyderabad again. Incensed by all this “goondagiri”, other Muslim groups too have been acting out:
The Majlis Bachao Tehreek (MBT), a MIM rival, meanwhile alleged that MIM foiled its (MBT’s) plan to kill Taslima outside the press club. MIM also came under criticism from some Urdu newspapers for attacking Nasreen with bouquets.
Carrying pictures of MIM legislators hurling bouquets, a newspaper came down heavily on the leaders for allowing her to leave Hyderabad unhurt. Considered a critic of MIM, the Siasat newspaper lampooned the legislators for their failure to inflict injuries to a woman. The paper suggested that Nasreen could have been killed as the police reached the scene 30 minutes after the attack.
I am fairly shaken up by all these happenings and on telling my friend this, I received this response:
Melody, you do realise, don’t you, that you are as fundamental in your beliefs as those Muslims?
I was almost stunned that a close friend of mine could perceive me in this light (as he obviously was thinking of fundamentalism at it’s worst)! I began to wonder whether he also thought me capable of hurling bouquets and chairs at Taslima Nasreen if I were at the press release of her book “All About Women”! (see the cover of the book below)
I believe that Taslima is an author who has courted controversy for many years now. She has gone on record officially stating “I know I will die at your hands” (referring to fundamental Muslim groups).
I believe that Taslima has indeed hurt many Muslim sentiments by the things she has said - just as she undoubtedly hurt Christian sentiments by the blasphemous book cover.
However at the beginning and the end of the day, the law is the law.
If my sentiments are hurt, I have the choice to speak out about it and I have the choice to tell people to ban the book. I even have the choice to make non-violent protests against it.
BUT,
I do not have the choice - nor does anyone else - to violently endanger the author’s life. I do not have the choice- nor does anyone else - to incite other people to break the law of the land, such as to commit violent acts, like murder, against another human being.
In a country which calls itself a Democracy that this type of behavior by fundamentalist should never be tolerated. This is indeed fundamentalism at its worst - we have elected representatives of India’s democracy saying that “we may be MLAs but are Muslims first”.
What blatant disregard for the India’s Constitution!
It’s like saying:
” WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION”“… but I don’t really believe in Secularism or Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship because I’m a Hindu / Muslim / Christian first!“
Can anything be more un-constitutional? Yet many of our Indian political party leaders - Hindu and Muslim have been - and continue to be guilty of this.
I believe that being fundamental (which in terms of religion is defined as the “strict adherence”) about one’s beliefs may not necessarily be a bad thing. Being fundamental about one’s religion is a choice people make for themselves. But this choice should be applicable to oneself only. I do not think anyone should force their belief systems upon others - especially not others who are not even part of their religion to start with.
Nasreen, is an atheist who has gone on record saying:
“I don’t believe in God, … The religion mongers segregate women from the human race”
I do not agree with Nasreen (at all!) but the Indian Constitutions offers her the liberty of thought, expression and belief.
While we may preach our beliefs to people in our own religion - and to anyone else who may themselves volunteer to hear it - we cannot and should not ever presume to think that we can shove religion down anyone’s throats just because we believe in it so strongly.
Each person has the right to the choice to believe what they want - whether we believe their viewpoint be correct or not, we cannot deprive them of that right to choose.
Because in doing so we make a open joke of the Constitution of our Country.
Tags: All-About-Women, Bangladesh, Bangladeshi-Writer, Christianity, Christians, Fundamentalism, Hindu, Indian-Constitution, Islam, Muslims, Political-Leaders, Sodhe, Taslima-Nasreen, Taslima-Nasrin
; ?>/feed-icon-24x24.png){kind=icon}
August 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I don’t think you’re fundamentalist. Strong faith in one’s beliefs is not the same as intolerance and I’m glad you’ve pointed out the difference. Good post.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
well….being a deeply religious person is totally different from being a fundamentalist/fanatic in its current definition..from your posts, i can judge that you are deeply religious.
fanatics usually have very little knowledge of their own religion, and they usually tend to interpret parts of their faith to fulfill their vile agendas. I am quite sure that nowhere in the koran does it say that people should be so violently treated just because they said something different from what is written in the book.
remember that blasphemy, in all forms and in all religions, is never defined by the religion itself, but by the so called guardians of that religion. religion is usually a mask, for people to fulfill their own agendas. Otherwise, all those high religious leaders who advise their followers to give their sacrifice in the name of a holy war would have given their own lives first!
the same holds for political parties. they want votes, and the best way to get votes in a country like ours is to play the religion card!
August 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
“The religion mongers segregate women from the human race” I agree with this statement. It is also true for segregation of casteism, creation of beliefs that are so decadent and basically a dulling of society as we know it.
I don’t think it is in mans hands to define what godliness and religion mean.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Melody
You say
“…I believe that Taslima has indeed hurt many Muslim sentiments by the things she has written about…”
Have you read the book ?? If yes, what exactly did you think hurt the Muslims. And if you havent read the book, on what basis do you make this statement ?
I think your post is very confusing. You are mixing two independant issues. I personally dont find anything offending about the book cover too.
If you really think that the book offends you, dont buy it and dont read it.
Creating unnecessary controversies where none exists is the job of politicians, not for me and you (hopefully)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Reading your post again, I am even more surprised at what you write…
Religion has always been biased towards men and women have always been left holding the short straw.
Have you ever thought why there are no women priests, bishops, cardinals or popes ?
Or women poojaris, or women imams, or women dastoors.
In all our religions, male dominance has existed for eons. Its only in the last few decades have we all tried to reason and refute what has been thrust down on us.
Tasleema is doing exactly the same.
I am surprised that you as a woman would find offense with that.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
@ Ashish: “the same holds for political parties. they want votes, and the best way to get votes in a country like ours is to play the religion card!”
Agree with this completely. A lot of the controversy over religion in our country if not all of it, has it’s basis in politics.
@ Bloodmire: I’m sure there are lots like you who do agree with Ms. Nasreen’s statement there. But I don’t, because I follow a religion which is particularly liberating for women.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I too would be offended if someone said “The Bible should be revised thoroughly”. Also, it’s good that you don’t take offense at the picture on her book, however regardless of your feeling towards it, I do take offense. It makes a mockery of a sacrifice I believe my God made for me and I don’t like that. At all.
You continue by saying, “If you really think that the book offends you, dont buy it and dont read it.” - which was exactly my point. I didn’t buy it & I’m not going to read it.
In fact I’m saying that though it hurt my sentiments, I’m not going to react out against her or incite people against her (do read my post yet again!). According to me, that’s the opposite of causing controversy, I’m surprised you would imply that I’m doing such a thing.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Women were considered as property through much of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Jesus later preached a revolutionary message: the equal status and worth of women. He demonstrated this concept throughout his ministry. Paul continued this tradition in the very early days of Christianity.
Besides in our religion it’s not about “men v/s women” or dominance by men (even if you do think that the example of men leading prayers brings this out).
I believe it’s rather that each gender has their role to play. To quote Pope John Paul II:
“Woman’s identity cannot consist in being a copy of man, since she is endowed with her own qualities and prerogatives, which give her a particular uniqueness that is always to be fostered and encouraged… To all in our age who offer selfish models for affirming the feminine personality, the luminous and holy figure of the Lord’s Mother shows how only by self-giving and self-forgetfulness towards others is it possible to attain authentic fulfillment of the divine plan for one’s own life.”
Which brings out another point, the veneration of the Mother Mary, a human woman given such a high status in our religion.
Regardless of all that however, the point of this post is not what I believe or don’t believe. The point is that I HAVE THE RIGHT to believe what I do, as do you, as does Taslima Nasreen, especially in a country whose constitution spells this out for us.. Read the last two lines in my post, again if you need to.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Melody
I dont think your intention was to make this into a religion justification post.
I think every single religion is biased towards women. It has been through history. The degree varies, but it is biased.
Why dont women have the right to choose whether they want abortion or not in Christianity? Why are there no women priests. All this when the mother of the prophet is so important a person in the life of Jesus. I am sure that Jesus had the best interests of mankind at heart but religion has been mangled over time and what we know today is interpretation that happened over generations.
If i think something is not in the Bible, I will raise objection to it. And that is because the Bible today is a written version of what was for a long time spoken history. And over 2000 years Man has interpreted every word in different ways and hence today you have various versions of the Bible, all in essence having the same story and message, but each inherently different enough to bring about at least a dozen versions of Christianity around the world.
I can give you lots of other instances where religion has made women subservient to men.
It is only in recent times that people have questioned religious diktat and are openl disagreeing with it.
And ironically religious text today is no longer the basis of law. And therefore to challenge it and understand it better is everyone’s prerogative.
This website can throw some light on what I am trying to express here “The Dark Bible: Women’s Inferior Status”
Even on this website with a cursory glance I can make out that what is written is one’s interpretation of the Bible, because if it is not, then there are serious problems with the Bible.
I agree with you totally about your conclusion that we all live in a democracy and therefore can speak our mind. However when you dont want to question the religious texts and the actions, because they hold a sentimental/spiritual value to you, that i beg to differ.
And believe me, as much as a staunch Parsi I am, I find a lot of things crazy enough in my own religious text and actions. I may not do everything in my means to change them, but I definitely don’t agree with a lot of them.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
and why is the cover blasphemous??
August 14th, 2007 at 11:02 am
well… melody i do agree with on the count taht this a\entire issue being created around taslima is absolutely illogical!! it defies all boundaries of sanity for me… coz like you i too believe in teh freedom of expression.. and not physicl at that please!!
but arzan has a pt, wen he says that all religions are baised against women!! if you observe very closely, let’s consider the preist issue - why has there never been a woman as priest? and its on show for every religion!! no woman priest!! agreed that each has their own duty to fulfill… but what if the woman wants to serve God?? she becomes a nun, right?? even then she’s under teh conrol of the bishop… or some other fella from the church who happens to be a guy!! i hope i am making my point clear!!
the truth is religion as we see it today is definitely not what it would have been!! it has been changed to accommodate the views and interests of MEN!! that’s why in Hindu customs you never see a woman bein allowed to take on central position…. yet!! the scriptures have sung songs of praise for woman hood!! contradictory????
two millenia is a long time for a religion to undergo changes beyond our understanding!! is it not?? believe in what you want!! but also be open to teh idea that wot u blv can be wrong!! blind faith is after all a fools right!!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I’m sorry but all those that are arguing about Christianity here don’t seem to understand it at all. Either way; Melody has a right to believe whatever she wants. So do you. Thats the point!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
@ St: If you don’t get it, am not gonna explain it.
@ Sam: “well… melody i do agree with on the count taht this a\entire issue being created around taslima is absolutely illogical!! it defies all boundaries of sanity for me… coz like you i too believe in teh freedom of expression.. and not physicl at that please!!”
Yup.
@ IC: Thanks. At least someone can see the point here. I sometimes wonder why people seem to miss the point (deliberate?) and go off on other tangents.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Melody
I agree with the point you are trying to make in this post - freedom of speech and expression is a part of our being free as a secular, independent nation, and that law is law and should be followed by all under all conditions.
I can understand your feeling offended by the book cover. However I can see how Taslima cud easily be misunderstood, for crucifixion was an ancient means of punishment and its use on the book-cover must be symbolic for the pains and the sufferings of womenfolk for eons(She already has enough people after her life; I am sure she too needs her peace of mind, for a change
.
Any work of literature/art is prone to be seen in a different light by different people, and I admire you in accepting the hurt and still trying to be logical about it.
Sometimes being deeply religious may come in our way in being completely open-minded(Having strong religious beliefs of my own, I can relate completely).
August 14th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Yes agree with you completely. Thanks for getting where I’m coming from. And it is difficult to be open-minded where the topic is close to your heart, so I think it’s important to try more.
Even when I read some of the comments here, I cringe thinking, AH! these people obviously don’t know what the Church’s position on these issues are or they wouldn’t speak of it in this regard.
Then I let it go thinking, they have a right to believe whatever they want. Even if they think my religion is biased against women or whatever, it doesn’t matter to me. I believe what I believe. They believe what they believe, if we all live and let live, the world would be a peaceful place.
Which was the point I was making in the post to start with
August 14th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
thats rather silly “if you dont get it..” - is it blasphemous because of the cross? which was a common method used by the romans of the time? are all the other unfortunate souls who died on the cross also guilty of committing blasphemy? or only those who died after Christ?
I am tempted to quote the bible to you here..
August 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
BUT HEY, I’m tired trying to get the point of this post across, especially to people (like you) whom I thought would understand.
So go ahead, quote me the Bible if it makes you feel good.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
so what you are saying is you are ok with the cross, but the crown of thorns makes it blasphemy?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
@ Melody: I’m glad you know that…it does make the opinion more credible, doesn’t it? I have to point out, however that by ‘good post’ I mean one that’s well-written and makes me think..even if not in agreement with my opinions. I have my own views on this but looking at the controversy this has kicked up, I think I’ll keep silent here.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
@ Idea: Ok, get what you’re saying.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
not biting? now what does that mean? - i notice you are neatly sidestepping the question (read weasling your way out)
August 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
@Melody : Your arguments are quite persuasive. Very often, the so called secular or atheist-minded people also try and ram their own beliefs on us; the same thing that they accuse religious-minded people of doing.
@St : Please give us examples of Romans crucifying persons with a crown of thorns on their heads. If Tasleema was really trying to depict women being crucified like the Romans did, she could have used the tree and not the cross.
@ArZan : Who told you that there are no women priests! Watch God Channel/ Church channel on TV or on the web, you will see many woman priests. In Christianity women are not inferior; both men and women have different roles to play. Tasleema may have the right to publish what she wants; but I also have the right to feel offended; I do not however have the right to attack her physically.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
>>Melody
Since you completely sidestepped my comment (#8 above) I dont think I can add anything to the discussion before you actually react to what I wrote.
Everyone has a right to their beliefs. But then passing on beliefs as truth is not OK. A lot of the commenters seem to agree with the idea that since an individual believes in something it is the truth.
In the pre-middle ages the whole world believed that Earth was flat….even the Christian Church. It was only when a smart fellow showed otherwise that those beliefs were shattered and everyone swallowed humble pill and moved on !!!
>>Lancy…WTF…truly WTF. Stop living in a world where religious ideology clouds logic and reason. Name one woman pope, cardinal or bishop. And if there hasnt been one in 2007 years of Christiandom, I am sorry but I see it as a clear case of bias against women.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Can you please stop arguing about Chrisianity here?
Frankly, at the time, Scientists (with the exception of Galileo and Copernicus would have also sworn that the earth was flat.
When DDT (a pesticide) was first launched in America, the politicians arranged for a swimming pool filled with DDT and people swimming in it and the campaign ‘DDT - so safe; you can swim in it!’
Fast forward many years and it is a banned substance in America and labelled a carcinogen (cancer causing agent.) Yes; the scientists had it wrong. Blame the scientists or the field of science?
In the begining of time; doctors would use leeches to cure diseases and often kill people with the methods they used. Do you say, medicine is an untrustworthy field or do you blame the doctors at the time of being ignorant?
Yes, Christians did have it wrong at times and yes, they still do get it wrong at times…I wouldn’t be arguing about the religion; only each ones understanding of it.
Please let me say here, that it is healthy to debate and have different views. What I loved about living in India is that so many religions live together in relative peace and harmony.
One of the reasons for this is that most people respect the fact that though what the other believed may not gel in their head, should be respected purely because you respect the person.
I think that you should be proud to live in a place called developing but can teach the rest of the world a thing or two about peaceful understanding, tolerance and most importantly respect.
Happy Independance day for all those in India!
August 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am
@ArZan
Rev. Barbara Green of the United Methodist Church is a bishop.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Sometimes the facts simply speak for themselves. If a local newspaper regrets missing the opportunity for killing a author, It simply displays the primitive mindset of its readers. If politicians can get away with this kind of Goonda behavior, It is simply because they accurately repesents the sentiments of their constituents.
Looking at it from the other side, how will we know there are such people in our midst if they are not provoked into behaving like this?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
@Lancy
United Methodist Who ??
I am sure all off shoots of religious movements will have these exceptions. However mainstream Christiandom does not.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
balls to people who persistently claim their right to be fool.
ok my penny to this post..
Noun: fundamentalism
1. The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth
Some questions by a fundamentalist. Should fundamentalism have degrees? If so, what is the limit? What if my religion says “balls to the constitution, this is the truth, go kill’em all!!”? What if my religious heads say “balls to science, this is the truth, don’t use condoms!”?
Melody, it might be very crystal clear to you that secular constitution is above all, including religion. But, why do you think should a fundamentalist believe in the same? What is so important about killing/physical hurting when compared to hurting of sentiments? In short, why should freedom of action be restricted when freedom of speech, which hurts mentally, is not? These are some simple things not understood by people who ‘believe’ in things no matter what i.e. fundamentalists, rather than in analyzing and understanding them. You, my friend, are doing the same when you resort to ‘right to believe’, when someone points to you for a healthy discussion.
I have one more question. Were you made to ‘believe’ in our constitution or did you come to a conclusion that constitution is the ultimate? Because there is a lot of intelligent ethical stuff in it, and there are flaws too..
There are reasons why one should not just blindly believe in stupid things, even though it is his/her right. 1) Beliefs are passed on through generations and they somehow become ‘common sense’ to people post 4-5 generations, however stoopid the beliefs might be. People don’t what to analyze these misperceived common sense stuff, as long as they continue believing in them. 2) Beliefs held by moderate fundamentalists are a fuel to extreme ones, because extremes tend to believe that they understand the texts deeper than the moderate ones, and it is their duty to protect the believed truth. 3) Every sacred text claims to be the ultimate truth. These truths clash most of the times and shed blood. 4) These texts were compiled at a time of barbarism and the survival of humanity was in question or when suppressed etc. The case is not so now, but even then these texts claim to be the truth for perpetuity.
The post you have written is a perfect example for the term ‘oxymoron’. In simple terms, moderate conservativism is hypocritical, because no one knows ‘how much’ is moderate. You are either a conservative or a liberal.
Liberals try to convert the conservatives, and conservatives try to eliminate liberals. The hypocritical ones in the middle make it hard any of it happening. If they dint exist, world would have been at peace with only one kind 
.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
well said virgo !!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:52 am
It is a sad day when one believes that a good analytical argument is to call what someone else believes in ‘Stoopid.’
The Albert Einstien believed in God and the more you analyse or study things, the more you realise how little is actually known.
I doubt that anyone in this chat will argue about black holes and quantum physics. Arguments which we do not know enough about, must be left to those that do.
I do wish that those who do argue here would really bother to find out enough before they argue. Anyone can have an opinion. Anyone can call anything stupid. An informed opinion is another matter.
Sadly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:11 am
@Arzan:
>> …In the pre-middle ages the whole world believed that Earth was flat….even the Christian Church. It was only when a smart fellow…
Actually, the Vatican Church authority apologized for Galileo’s arrest and manhandling in 1992, a whole 350 years after his death! They still dont believe in existence of fossils, because according to Bible, world was created in 7 days and why would God ever make any species extinct !
@IC:
>> “..Do you say, medicine is an untrustworthy field or do you blame the doctors at the time of being ignorant?”
hey, atleast science and scientists make an attempt to evolve, understand the world around us, trying to answer the million dollar questions like “are we alone?” etc….what has religion done over the years? wars, rapes, riots? not to mention, spreading the unarguable, unquestionable axiom that “God is watching all of us and He created us”…and then they describe all this with words like “belief” and “faith”, so no one can demand proof or validity. If at all there is God or some superpower, then listen to this: It will be through science that we all will find that out. None of your prayers are going to work in answering any question.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I am not religious and I am not against anyone wanting to follow their own religion. Its their choice. In my view, the sole advantage of religions (no matter which) has been imparting morals. Morals like “Do not steal”, “Do not kill” or “Do not cheat on your wife” etc. Science is absolutely zero in all these matters. And this is where religions play a role in human society. But when they go aboard making abstract justifications like “God will answer our prayers and help us out” and such, without any “proof” but just basing it on “faith and belief”, thats when they overstep and become the primary weapon for people in justifying violence. Christianity and Islam, both are monotheist religions, meaning they dont only believe in their own Gods, they DENY the existence of other religions and Gods. Thats why devout Christians and Muslims have tried forcible conversions throughout history.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
hey, has anyone watched the movie Monty Python’s - “Life of Brian” (1979) There’s a hilarious scene of stone throwing in which the crowd eventually stones the king instead of the criminal.. thats how blindly following constitution would be like.. hehe..
do watch that movie for ultimate fun! i am sure even those who get offended will have a good time..
The movie is about a Messiah,Brian , during Jesus times by the way..
August 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
sorry .. i meant ‘messenger’, Brian..
August 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Arzan, I’m not arguing with you about Christianity or any religion here - can’t you see - THAT’S THE POINT: I believe what I want to, you believe what you want to.
I have a strong feeling, though, based on how much you’ve been going on, that you will persist, if that be the case, fine. Will not reply to any more of your comments after this.
I respect your right to your opinion though it differs from mine. And rest assured, I’ll not throw bouquets / chairs at you for stating such.
@ Virgo: Whoa! You make such ridiculous statements, I wouldn’t know where to begin. So I think, I’ll just leave it saying this: I don’t agree with most of what you’ve said. But like this post says, go ahead & you believe what you want to - even that I’m a “hypocrite” if that makes you feel good about your opinions! Trust Arzan to support you here!
@ Lancy:
I believe that’s exactly what Arzan & Virgo are doing here! Arzan says he’s religious about his own religion, but apparently he also has strong views on my religion and seems intent to shove those opinions of his down my throat!! And Virgo! I have no idea whether he’s Liberal or Conservative – but he condemns everyone who not either, calling them Hypocrites!!
In a way, it’s quite amusing isn’t it?! Good to know you get it!
@ IC: Agree with everything you say. Especially this part:
Have often thought the same thing myself! I on my part would never argue with, say a Parsi about Zoroastrianism
but hey, to each his own!
August 16th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Mitesh, what I have been trying to equate those so-called ‘devout’ people to is the doctors or scientists of old.
Don’t blame the science/medicine/religion if the people get it wrong!
August 16th, 2007 at 11:08 am
BTW I cannot speak about other Religions (I don’t claim to be an expert) but Christianity advocates turning the other cheek; loving thy neighbour and not killing.
And I believe that my prayers do work. I will say a prayer for your well being today!
God Bless!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I firmly and strongly agree with what you said in this post. I am so happy we finally agree on something. I think this post definitely needs it’s own page.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Melody, tell me when did u ever agree with points made agaist your beliefs?
!
You always have your silly right not to agree, dont you
How would you being a hypocrite make me feel good!
and oh by the way i dont ‘believe’ that you are a hypocrite, i conclude it. 
“Melody, you do realise, don’t you, that you are as fundamental in your beliefs as those Muslims?”
That was very apt a comment by your friend. And your defense that you wouldn’t throw bouquets or chairs do no help. I am dead sure if you were in an anarchical society, you would sure do it
, even though your religion may not preach it.
read, you - all moderate conservatives.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Concluding would presume some sort of scientific reasoning, therefore including thinking and or believing. But thats arguing semantics.
When does one ever agree with points that are against their beliefs? Wouldn’t that be hypocritical?
Virgo, if you (for argument sake) believe/conclude /reason that you are right, would you agree with a point to the contrary? Wouldn’t that be the very defination of hypocritical?
I think you have to resort to name calling ‘hypocrite’, ’silly’ because you cannot defend your viewpoint without it.
Pity!
August 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
ah IC good illogical point there..
If one had a ‘belief’ and then changes his/her point of view when he/she sees logical arguments, he/she wouldnt be hypocritical.
No please don’t separate believe and concluding by reason with a ‘/’ .. Ofcourse I would revert my stance if i find a better point unlike urs or lancy’s
..
Hypocrisy is not to do with changing stances anyway..
Hypocrisy is something to do with preaching or claiming to follow beliefs, when they do not actually. Its to do with sincerity. Its the case with all moderate followers. All religions require strict adherence to the texts, but when the fruits of liberal life are tasted its not possible to revert back, and therefore some to many of beliefs are neglected. Fundamentalism is a case when someone is not able neglect some crucial directives in the text. Fundamentalism is a case where the same people bestow upon themselves a duty to protect and spread what they believe. As you know there are sincerest followers even in fundamentalists.
Do you really need proofs how silly belief’s can be?
.. for a start look for condom usage in this same site 
… you seem intelligent when you quoted albert einstien, i bet he wouldnt agree on this silly belief 
.. i’ll show you more silly detrimental beliefs held by religions if you are satisfied by this condom case 
.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
No I don’t need proof, it is quite apparent from some of the statements here.
If you think that you are right and all religions are wrong, you are entitled to that belief. If you insist on shoving your opinion down others throat, how different are you from a fundamentalist?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Dude! Shove?!
I follow no texts. Did your math teacher shove an opinion on you that four times four is sixteen? I find these places infinite times more academic than shoving down one’s throat. Uninvited I maybe, but I need to validate/show to the world logics and reasonings which i learnt from thinkers/thought of, shouldn’t I?
It might be for ego boost or unselfish attitude.. but at the end debates are going to help. whats the whole point when you shut your doors by not hearing or by not giving counter/constructive arguments.
do you have any idea, the number of wars and deaths because of religions? Not just religions, but because of so called ‘beliefs’? Even because of beliefs not preached in texts.. Hitler is one example of the latter case.
Here no one is shoving opinion unto anyone. Opinions are placed open, so that others too can read. There are millions suppressed because of beliefs. Maybe a father out there stops believing in silly stuff and gives his kids freedom, or maybe a man out there stops beating his wife … maybe even some dictator realizes his crimes….
.
maybe the pope realises and tries to stop stds!( ofcourse, melody if the pope is an ardent reader of you blog
but then again people like melody are more impressive writers into making people believe that believing silly is ok
August 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Mel - are you not going to present your case? Virgo seems to be doing a good job of presenting his..
August 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Way to go Mel!
August 16th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
@ Virgo:
Why would I agree with something I didn’t believe in? And thanks for informing me that my rights are “silly”. Geez, I didn’t know! And great comeback, I must say.
Well you’re entitled to believe what you like! Stay far away from me if you’re worried.
@ IC:
I know. He just keeps digging himself further and further into the pit. While all the time thinking himself very smart, no doubt.
@ St: “Virgo seems to be doing a good job of presenting his”
Yes indeed!!! Let’s see, he’s called me a hypocrite and now said I don’t ever agree with points made against my beliefs? (because that apparently is the done thing!! lol) and finally, the pièce de résistance (seriously you’ve gotto love this statement) “You always have your silly right not to agree, dont you”.
Me and my silly rights! What WAS I THINKING?!! How dare I assume I have any rights to agree or not. They’re just SILLY!
Yeah St, I need to present a case for myself against THAT!!
@ Saks: Merci babe.
@ The Rest of the Janta, old & new: Closing this rather inane tangential set of comments now! The point of the post (if anyone is interested, lol) was that: “The point is that I HAVE THE RIGHT to believe what I do, as do we all, as does Taslima Nasreen, especially in a country whose constitution spells this out for us”.
If anyone still wants to go on about this, I suggest you write a post at your blog about it. The voice in my head is rather looking forward to a peaceful weekend of no arguments. Peace y’all!
August 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
“my religion” and “my God”
that’s so ridiculous.. and anyway the sum of our long discussion on gtalk was
a) India’s constitution guarantees free speech and Mel supports the same (Duh)
b) The cross was blasphemous - although Mel doesnt wish to/cant explain why - as i do not see any disrepect in the depiction of the cross.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Our gTalk was fruitful! Glad both points got across. And I did explain the reason why I thought the cover blasphemous (here too, partially in comment #17). But anyway, you have your right to believe it’s not blasphemous and I respect that.
OK THAT’S ALL FOLKS!!