[from www.bbc.co.uk]
A student of a religious seminary in Pakistan's Punjab province has died after he was punished by his teacher, police say. Atif, seven, was hung upside down from a ceiling fan by Maulvi Ziauddin for not memorising his Koran lessons, his fellow students told the police.
Atif's condition deteriorated quickly and he died in the teacher's room. Maulvi Ziauddin has been arrested. Human rights organisation say Pakistani children are often exposed to abuse.
Arrested
The students told the police in the town of Vehari that Atif was punished on Wednesday by Maulvi Ziauddin who left him hanging from the fan for some time. The son of a farm labourer, Atif lived in the seminary with about 20 other students, including a cousin.
"When his cousin did not see Atif on Wednesday night or the next morning, he informed the family," a Vehari police official, Mohammad Afzal, told the BBC. "Members of the family found Atif's body in Maulvi Ziauddin's room, but the cleric himself was missing," he said.
He was arrested from a nearby village later on Thursday.
The police said they would file formal charges after an autopsy report is issued by the local hospital. In a report published in January, Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid (LHRLA) - an organisation which monitors and compiles cases of child abuse and kidnapping - said children in Pakistan were increasingly exposed to abuse, kidnapping and violence.
The number of reported cases involving children has more than doubled from 617 in 2006 to 1,595 last year, the report said. It blamed poor law enforcement and old social attitudes towards children's rights as some of the reasons for the problem.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
What is Karma ?
[from The Magazine, www.bbc.co.uk]
Sharon Stone claims the earthquake in China is the result of bad karma for its treatment of Tibetans. Is her definition - "when you are not nice, bad things happen to you" - correct?
THE ANSWER:
Law of Karma holds that actions have consequences.
Ethical intention behind an action affects outcome.
Other factors also come into play.
And Sharon Stone, a convert to Buddhism, has claimed - to much criticism - that the earthquake that killed at least 68,000 people in China was bad karma for Beijing policy in Tibet. "I thought, is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?" she mused at the Cannes Film Festival.
Karma is an important concept for Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs. Translated from the Sanskrit, it means simply "action". Because karma is used in a number of ways and contexts - even among different branches of Buddhism - this can be confusing.
Dhammadassin, a teacher at the London Buddhist Centre, says that Stone's take on karma is common - glossed over as an outcome that is the result of something done in the past - or even a past life. "This reduces the enormously complex matter of causes and their effects to a question of retribution meted out for unspecified previous actions," she says.
But the law of karma states that it's the motive behind one's actions that affects the outcome of that particular act.
"So an intentionally ethical action - for example to promote kindness, generosity, contentment - is more likely to have positive, beneficial consequences. An intentionally unethical one - to promote self-aggrandisement or greed - will be more likely to have unhelpful, even harmful consequences. Unhelpful, that is, for the positive well-being of either the doer or the recipient or both."
In a complex world, it's too simplistic to expect that a positive intention will always have a positive outcome as many factors are involved, she says.
Poetic justice
The idea of moral causation has long been held in India, but the doctrine of karma was formulated and explained by the Buddha, a spiritual teacher thought to have lived about 2,500 years ago. Some believe that he was a human who became enlightened; others that he was a god.
His teachings hold that whatever comes into existence does so in response to the conditions at the time, and in turn affects what comes after it.
Sangharakshita, the Briton who founded the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in 1967, explains this with the following example in his book Who Is The Buddha? "Rainfall, sunshine, and the nourishing earth are the conditions from which arises the oak tree, whose fallen leaves rot and form the rich humus from which the bluebell grows."
Dhammadassin says that despite its simplicity, this example reflects the inter-connectedness of our world, "in which our views, attitudes, opinions and intentions all have a part to play in creating our actions and their consequences". And what many call karma is actually closer to the idea of poetic justice, she says.
Nor do Buddhists believe karma is the only cause - others are:
- inorganic or environmental factors, such as the weather << China Earthquake !
- organic or biological factors, like bacteria or viruses
- psychological factors such as stress
- and transcendental or spiritual factors (such as the sometimes powerful galvanizing effect of spiritual practice)
Some comments on this story, using the form below.
Sharon Stone's comment is the idiotic New Age equivalent of fundamentalist Christians' ignorant statements that Aids is God's retribution for homosexuality and pre-marital sex.
Ben, Edinburgh
It's worth noting that the earthquake affected areas heavily populated by Tibetans as well as Chinese. As a supporter of the Tibetan cause I find it unconscionable that the deaths of innocent Chinese people could be attributed to negative karma. These people are not complicit in the actions of the Chinese government and do not deserve hardship and suffering any more than the Tibetan people. Whilst I commend Sharon Stone for her concern, her comments are ill-judged and insensitive. I'm afraid she has a poor grasp on the concept of karma as well as the demographics of the region affected by the earthquake. My thoughts go to all the Tibetan and Chinese families in the region affected by this tragedy.
Terry Bettger, London
People are always entitled to their opinion, but opinions, particularly religious ones that have no evidence to back them up, are often dangerous or offensive to people. It's no more provable than if I claimed it rained yesterday because the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster was angry with me because I didn't finish all of my pasta-based dinner.
Ryan Hawthorne, Brighton
Sharon Stone is now an authority on Eastern philosophy? As Socrates said: "I am the wisest man in Athens not because I know anything but because I know that I know nothing." Success in one field automatically makes people assume that they should be an expert in another. I like Tiger Woods who, when asked the (yawn) question about representing his race, said "I am a golfer". I suspect that his dignity and intelligence is not copied often enough by other (bigger yawn) celebs.
Mark G, Brussels, Belgium
The remarks made by Sharon Stone apart from being very offensive demonstrate a complete lack of logical thought and reason plus a large amount of ignorance, predjudice and stupidity. It is sad that a person who is famous chiefly for flashing her genitalia in a second rate movie twenty years ago is paid the slightest bit of attention by the media when making moronic comments like these on a subject about which she clearly knows very very little and understands even less. It is a logical fallacy to assume that all Chinese people are responsible for the injustices and oppression perpetrated by the Chinese government in Tibet. Probably only a small proportion of those who died or lost their homes in the recent earthquake in China had any connection or involvement in Tibet, whilst many others in the Chinese government and military who are directly involved escaped harm. It is foolish in the extreme to consider over a Billion Chinese people as being a single entity with the entire population being responsible for the actions of a few post-Maoist hard liners in the government and the inevitable paid thugs who support them. Sharon Stone evidently does not understand the concept of Karma and seems to be confusing it with some infantile notion of divine retribution. This is not what Karma means in Buddhism or Hinduism and her conversion to Buddhism looks like a superficial and affected publicity stunt as was her meeting and photo opportunity with the Dalai Lama who I'm absolutely certain would totally disagree with her comments.
We should feel compassion for the poor unfortunate victims of the earthquake in China instead of saying they got what they deserved! What a abysmal lack of humanity and compassion!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are
In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?
by Irshad Manji [from Times Online, June 21, 2007]
Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business.
But looking around my neighbourhood, I noticed that most of the new business signs featured Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Punjabi and plenty of Urdu. Not Hebrew. Urdu, which is spoken throughout Pakistan.
That reality check made me ask: What if my religious school is not educating me? What if it is indoctrinating me?
I am reminded of this question thanks to the news that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and ten other works of fiction, will be knighted by the Queen of England. On Monday, Pakistan’s religious affairs minister said that in light of how Rushdie has blasphemed Islam with provocative literature, it is understandable why angry Muslims would commit suicide bombings over his knighthood.
Members of Parliament, as well as the Pakistani government, amplified the condemnation of Britain, feeding cries of offense to Muslim sensibilities from Europe to Asia.
As a Muslim, you better believe I am offended – by these absurd reactions.
I am offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence. In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Quran.
Salam’s country ought to have celebrated him. Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a “non-Muslim” because he belonged to a religious minority. His name continues to be controversial, invoked by state authorities in hushed tones.
I am offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family’s honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Guantanamo prisoners. But where is our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own?
I am offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging. The country’s female tourism minister had embraced – or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from – her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be “a great sin.” They demanded she be fired.
I am offended by their fatwa proclaiming that women should stay at home and remain covered at all times. I am offended that they have bullied music store owners and video vendors into closing shop. I am offended that the government tiptoes around their craziness because these clerics threaten suicide attacks if confronted.
I am offended that on Sunday, at least 35 Muslims in Kabul were blown to bits by other Muslims and on Tuesday, 87 more in Baghdad by Islamic “insurgents”, with no official statement from Pakistan to deplore these assaults on fellow believers. I am offended that amid the internecine carnage, a professed atheist named Salman Rushdie tops the to-do list.
Above all, I am offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God’s self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?
I am not saying that standing up to intimidation is easy. This past spring, the Muslim world made it that much more difficult. A 56-member council of Islamic countries pushed the UN Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution against the “defamation of religion”. Pakistan led the charge. Focused on Islam rather than on faith in general, the resolution allows repressive regimes to squelch freedom of conscience further – and to do so in the guise of international law.
On occasion, though, the people of Pakistan show that they do not have to be muzzled by clerics and politicians. Last year, civil society groups vocally challenged a set of anti-female laws, three decades old and supposedly based on the Quran. Their religiously respectful approach prompted even mullahs to hint that these laws are man-made, not God-given.
This month, too, Pakistanis forced their government to lift restrictions on the press. No wonder my own book, translated into Urdu and posted on my website, is being downloaded in droves. Religious authorities will not let it be sold in the markets. But they cannot stop Pakistanis – or other Muslims – from satiating a genuine hunger for ideas.
In that spirit, it is high time to “ban” hypocrisy under the banner of Islam. Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are.
After all, the very first bounty on Rushdie's head was worth £1 million. It increased to £1.25 million; then higher. The chief benefactor, Iran's government, claimed to have profitably invested the principal. Hence the rising value of the reward. Looks like Jews are not the only people handy at business.
A Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, Irshad Manji is creator of the new documentary Faith Without Fear and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change
by Irshad Manji [from Times Online, June 21, 2007]
Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business.
But looking around my neighbourhood, I noticed that most of the new business signs featured Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Punjabi and plenty of Urdu. Not Hebrew. Urdu, which is spoken throughout Pakistan.
That reality check made me ask: What if my religious school is not educating me? What if it is indoctrinating me?
I am reminded of this question thanks to the news that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and ten other works of fiction, will be knighted by the Queen of England. On Monday, Pakistan’s religious affairs minister said that in light of how Rushdie has blasphemed Islam with provocative literature, it is understandable why angry Muslims would commit suicide bombings over his knighthood.
Members of Parliament, as well as the Pakistani government, amplified the condemnation of Britain, feeding cries of offense to Muslim sensibilities from Europe to Asia.
As a Muslim, you better believe I am offended – by these absurd reactions.
I am offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence. In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Quran.
Salam’s country ought to have celebrated him. Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a “non-Muslim” because he belonged to a religious minority. His name continues to be controversial, invoked by state authorities in hushed tones.
I am offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family’s honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Guantanamo prisoners. But where is our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own?
I am offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging. The country’s female tourism minister had embraced – or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from – her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be “a great sin.” They demanded she be fired.
I am offended by their fatwa proclaiming that women should stay at home and remain covered at all times. I am offended that they have bullied music store owners and video vendors into closing shop. I am offended that the government tiptoes around their craziness because these clerics threaten suicide attacks if confronted.
I am offended that on Sunday, at least 35 Muslims in Kabul were blown to bits by other Muslims and on Tuesday, 87 more in Baghdad by Islamic “insurgents”, with no official statement from Pakistan to deplore these assaults on fellow believers. I am offended that amid the internecine carnage, a professed atheist named Salman Rushdie tops the to-do list.
Above all, I am offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God’s self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?
I am not saying that standing up to intimidation is easy. This past spring, the Muslim world made it that much more difficult. A 56-member council of Islamic countries pushed the UN Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution against the “defamation of religion”. Pakistan led the charge. Focused on Islam rather than on faith in general, the resolution allows repressive regimes to squelch freedom of conscience further – and to do so in the guise of international law.
On occasion, though, the people of Pakistan show that they do not have to be muzzled by clerics and politicians. Last year, civil society groups vocally challenged a set of anti-female laws, three decades old and supposedly based on the Quran. Their religiously respectful approach prompted even mullahs to hint that these laws are man-made, not God-given.
This month, too, Pakistanis forced their government to lift restrictions on the press. No wonder my own book, translated into Urdu and posted on my website, is being downloaded in droves. Religious authorities will not let it be sold in the markets. But they cannot stop Pakistanis – or other Muslims – from satiating a genuine hunger for ideas.
In that spirit, it is high time to “ban” hypocrisy under the banner of Islam. Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are.
After all, the very first bounty on Rushdie's head was worth £1 million. It increased to £1.25 million; then higher. The chief benefactor, Iran's government, claimed to have profitably invested the principal. Hence the rising value of the reward. Looks like Jews are not the only people handy at business.
A Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, Irshad Manji is creator of the new documentary Faith Without Fear and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Einstein: Religion is Childish Superstition
[by Peter Winkler, Valley Village, California (Blogger)]
One of the argumentative ploys used by Dennis Prager in trying to trap atheists is to ask them if belief in God is stupid and therefore a sign of stupidity among believers. If Prager's respondent says "Yes," Prager then asks them if they think Einstein was stupid, because Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe." This is supposed to prove that highly intelligent people can also believe in God.Well, today we have a nice story that will deprive Prager of his Einstein proof.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper."For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.
I'm sure most atheists are too intelligent to be caught out by such an obvious argument! Firstly Dennis Prager should clarify what he means by "God". Is he refering to the Judeo-Christian God the he apparently believes in or the God that Einstein refered to, which was no more than a personification of the physical and mathematical laws of the universe. Einstein did not believe in religion and it is dishonest of Prager to try to pretend that he did. Hopefully the above quote will help to clarify Einstein's real views and prevent apologists from trying similar silly arguments based on misrepresentation in the future.
One of the argumentative ploys used by Dennis Prager in trying to trap atheists is to ask them if belief in God is stupid and therefore a sign of stupidity among believers. If Prager's respondent says "Yes," Prager then asks them if they think Einstein was stupid, because Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe." This is supposed to prove that highly intelligent people can also believe in God.Well, today we have a nice story that will deprive Prager of his Einstein proof.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper."For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.
I'm sure most atheists are too intelligent to be caught out by such an obvious argument! Firstly Dennis Prager should clarify what he means by "God". Is he refering to the Judeo-Christian God the he apparently believes in or the God that Einstein refered to, which was no more than a personification of the physical and mathematical laws of the universe. Einstein did not believe in religion and it is dishonest of Prager to try to pretend that he did. Hopefully the above quote will help to clarify Einstein's real views and prevent apologists from trying similar silly arguments based on misrepresentation in the future.
However Prager is correct that highly intelligent people can also believe in God and there are many such examples. Such people frequently come up with very deep philosophical and complex arguments to support their beliefs. If examined carefully under the layers of amiguity, sophistry and complicated word usage there always seems to be a flaw in such arguments. Einstein however was not one of these people.
Vatican says aliens could exist
[By David Willey, BBC News, Rome]
The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.
Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'.
'Free from sin'
Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.
Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.
Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'.
'Free from sin'
Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.
Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
Now that space research has discovered that extra terrestrial life is almost certain to exist and it is only a matter of time before we find it, the Catholic church scrambles to incorporate the idea into their belief system. Now they are busy inventing ways to tie aliens in to the Christian world view. They are so obviously worried that discovery of alien life will lead to the loss of more and more adherents to their faith as people gradually realize that Christianity is based on an outdated and very narrow vision of the universe. Science does not need religion as claimed by Father Funes and in fact religion has generally held back scientific advancement when new discoveries showed that religious claims about the nature of existence were incorrect. After all religions and Christianity certainly being no exception, are made up with the purpose of attracting followers that will do whatever the leaders of that religion wish them to do for example; give them money, have sex with them, provide them with lives of luxury while the rest live in poverty etc
The Catholic church has only ever supported science as a means of prolonging its own survival by attempting to attain credibility as a forward thinking organization. It is not! It is oppressive and continues to perpertrate beliefs that cause huge damage and suffering in the world such as it's stance on use of condoms. Do not be taken in by the Catholic churches pretence of support for scientific research. It is a self serving lie!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
When theology is not black and white
Barack Obama has now dissociated himself from Dr Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, after Dr Wright's most recent public appearance, a speech to the National Press Club. Senator Obama said, 'Obviously whatever relationship I have had with the Rev Wright has changed. I don't think he showed much concern for me or what we are trying to do with this campaign or for the American people.' The impact of the Jeremiah Wright affair on Obama's bid for the Democratic nomination is difficult to assess at this point, but it could still prove fatal. If Obama's former pastor scuttles his chances of becoming the Unites States' first black president, it would be a tragedy of Greek proportions. Needless to day, Hillary Clinton has been making hay -- she has even appeared on the right-wing O'Reilly Factor, on Fox News, to say, repeatedly, that she would not have remained in any church pastored by Jeremiah Wright (in other words, either Obama's judgment is suspect or he secretly agrees with Jeremiah Wright).
Jeremiah Wright claims that attacks on his sermons are in fact attacks on the black church. I've no doubt that many white Americans are struggling to understand the theology and practice of black Christianity. But I am equally sure that many are simply outraged at Dr Wright's claims that America was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, his praise for the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is regarded by many as an anti-Semite, and his bizarre allegation that the US government created the Aids virus in order to infect black people.
Jeremiah Wright claims that attacks on his sermons are in fact attacks on the black church. I've no doubt that many white Americans are struggling to understand the theology and practice of black Christianity. But I am equally sure that many are simply outraged at Dr Wright's claims that America was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, his praise for the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is regarded by many as an anti-Semite, and his bizarre allegation that the US government created the Aids virus in order to infect black people.
Here's a primer on Jeremiah Wright and black theology:
TIME profile of Jeremiah Wright.
Wright interviewed by Bill Moyers.
Wright addresses National Press Club.
A journalistic visit to Barack Obama's church.
James Cone, a leading black theologian, explains black theology.
TIME profile of Jeremiah Wright.
Wright interviewed by Bill Moyers.
Wright addresses National Press Club.
A journalistic visit to Barack Obama's church.
James Cone, a leading black theologian, explains black theology.
William Crawley
Reverend Wright is a total idiot! He preaches lies and nonsense in his attempts to stir up hatred and resentment amongst his Africal American congregregation. He is also doing everything possible to damage Barack Obama's campaign. His five minutes of fame must be more important to him than supporting Obama. He has nothing intelligent to say and should be ignored. I feel sure his sermons are full of devisive comments and factual inaccuracies. No one is attacking the black church they are rightly criticising Reverend Wright alone for his outrageous and ridiculous comments. I hear he retired recently which is best for all concerned.
Now let the media stop paying attention to this moron and move on!
"Respect atheists", says Cardinal
[from http://www.bbc.co.uk/]
The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem". Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a "fact in the world", he said in a lecture.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.
The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales said that a "hidden God" was active in everyone's life. The Cardinal's lecture at Westminster Cathedral comes after a spate of public clashes over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools. He expressed concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life, saying: "Our life together in Britain cannot be a God-free zone and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good."
Proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. Last year, he complained of a "new secularist intolerance of religion" and the state's "increasing acceptance" of anti-religious views.
To stem this tide, he said Christians must understand they have something in common with those who do not believe.
God is not a "fact in the world" as though God could be treated as "one thing among other things to be empirically investigated" and affirmed or denied on the "basis of observation", said Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. "If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. "I want to encourage people of faith to regard those without faith with deep esteem because the hidden God is active in their lives as well as in the lives of those who believe.
Of course Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor encouraging Christians to respect those who don't share their beliefs is admirable and he makes a very good point that Christians tend to talk about God as if his existence is an indisputable fact as opposed to a belief. In fact one can say that God clearly does exist in some form even if only as a manifestation of the Human psyche but the problem with Christians is that they claim to know God and God's nature. As we all know they go further to claim that a man was the literal son of God who was resurrected from death. These beliefs when considered rationally seem to say the least extremely improbable.Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.
The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales said that a "hidden God" was active in everyone's life. The Cardinal's lecture at Westminster Cathedral comes after a spate of public clashes over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools. He expressed concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life, saying: "Our life together in Britain cannot be a God-free zone and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good."
Proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. Last year, he complained of a "new secularist intolerance of religion" and the state's "increasing acceptance" of anti-religious views.
To stem this tide, he said Christians must understand they have something in common with those who do not believe.
God is not a "fact in the world" as though God could be treated as "one thing among other things to be empirically investigated" and affirmed or denied on the "basis of observation", said Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. "If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. "I want to encourage people of faith to regard those without faith with deep esteem because the hidden God is active in their lives as well as in the lives of those who believe.
The implausibility of the Christian belief system is the most likely reason for the "decline in faith " that the Cardinal refers to. As science and technology become ever more advanced and the general population gain greater knowledge of the universe and our place in it, less and less of them continue to be convinced by religious teaching. It becomes more and more apparent that Christianity and other religions are man made for the purpose of manipulation and control.
It seems ridiculous that the Cardinal should complain about secularist intolerance of religion and the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life. Christianity lacks serious credibility and should certainly not be tolerated as a source of authority in matters of government and law. It is a personal belief that individuals may choose to follow as a means of enabling their spiritual development and no more than that. In my view the spiritual journey can be better advanced through secularist means and through Buddhism than by theism.
Hopefully the days of Church influencing State are coming to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)