God (Khoda)

[jjbb]

نشان لیاقت خدا


از جنگ بر می گردی،هیچ کس اما به استقبالت نمی آید.هیچ کس نمیداند که به جنگ رفته بودی.با شکوه ترین جنگها اما همین است.جنگی غریبانه ،جنگی تنها،جنگی بی سپاه و بی سلاح

از جنگ بر می گردی،خدا می داند که به جنگ رفته بودی.خاک روی پیراهنت را می تکاند و نشان لیاقتی به تو می دهد.نشان لیاقتش اما مدالی نیست که بر گردنت بیاویزی.نشان لیاقت خدا تنها چند خط ساده است.خط های ساده ای که بر پیشانی ات اضافه می شود. و روزی می رسد که پیشانی ات پر از دستخط خدا می شود

آیینه ها می گویند آن کس زیباتر است که خطی بر چهره ندارد. آیینه ها اما دروغ می گویند. دستخط خدا بر هر صفحه ای که بنشیند، زیبایش می کند

جوانی بهایی است که در ازای دستخط خدا می دهیم.دستخط خدا اما بیش از اینها می ارزد، کیست که جوانی اش را به دستخط خدا نفروشد

[Rasputin]

Question:

I accept that some sort of "Higher Being" created the universe. But why couldn't there be many such beings? Is there any logical reason to say that there is only one god?

Answer:

The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition." G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d. By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.

That's why there can be only one G-d. Because if you don't have a definition, then there is nothing outside of you. There can be no "other".

An example: two neighboring countries can only be called two countries when there is a border in between them. But if a country has no borders, if there is no defined place where it ends and another country begins, how can you say that there are two countries?

G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?

The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him G-d. And that's why there can only be one.

[Inquisitor]

Responding RedWine and those atheists who have gray identity

Who Created God?
One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always “been” than it is to say that matter has always “been”? As Carl Sagan has said, “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Cosmos, p. 257).

Here is my arguement, took me a while to write, I tried not to get into Shia and advanced Philosophy.

It is basic philosophy, If I enter Shia Philosophy, you and even many Shia members will have no clue.

Firstly I try to define non-existence or nothingness for you: (not sure if you know it or not)

Consider a box, in it a few items, now we remove those items; is there nothing in the box? Notice how we treat “nothing” it is almost as if we are taking it for another item!

As long as there is space in the box even if it is empty space we can not call it nothing. Empty space is something that we can imagine but nothingness is not imaginable. Therefore many great thinkers have said that nothingness is relative which means it is understood only in conjunction with other things.
For example you eat an apple, that apple no longer exists as it used to be, or you burn a piece of wood.

If we try to reduce the empty space inside the box we effectively move towards a point which has no dimensions and if we remove all empty space inside the box, the box will no longer exist. Reducing the empty space inside the box also means that the box itself is becoming smaller. Now imagine a point that has no dimensions which means it has zero length in x, y and z axis. Such a point can hold no objects in it.

But even that point has an existential value; non-existence is basically even to remove that point!

So to sum up, relative non-existence is a difference between two imagined or considered conditions. For example I remember that my hair was black but now it is white, so relative non-existence is a difference or contradiction that is discovered through the act of comparison while absolute non-existence is logically invalid and ambiguous because it has nothing to be identified with, it is the total lack of identity, in short it IS NOT.

I think I already told you what is logic an another thread.

Human logic is the most important faculty of human mind, in order for it to function it has to deal with at least two objects. Because one thing can not be judged with itself, a thing can only be judged or compared by another thing so comparison judgment and logic is all the same thing.

When comparing two objects two types of information can be discovered:

1- similarity
2- distinction

Distinction means disunity while similarity means unity.

Now we consider two extreme cases:

1- Two objects that are absolutely distinct.
2- Two objects that are absolutely similar.

The first condition is proven impossible in a few steps:

Firstly two objects that have nothing in common or are absolutely distinct can not have any relation to one another. In fact they are so different that they can not even interact with one another. In fact a careful analysis reveals that two absolutely distinct objects must be in fact existing and non-existing objects, because there are no two things in the whole universe that are in more contradiction than existence and non-existence. Thus two objects must be similar at least in one way in order to be compared.

Consider one who does the act of comparison as an object and the compared objects, in short witness and the witnessed or observer and the observed are also objects and entities that must have at least one similarity, otherwise there is no comparison.

As for the second condition, it is logically invalid because:

If we assume two objects that are absolutely similar and have not a single distinction then why they were numbered one and two in the very beginning? Indeed two absolutely similar objects must be in fact one.

As an example consider two absolutely similar balls that also occupy the same place and are formed by the same matter! This seems to be mad and indeed it is, so two objects must differ at least in one way in order to be differentiated.

This proves that all that exists is united by at least existence and disunited by human mind. But let’s keep it as a riddle for now and let us get back to the main question:

How can God create everything and he himself not be created?

I discussed the fundamentals of human logic and defined non-existence as the absolute lack of identity and existence as self-evidence and self-evident.

Now I ask you, can something come from absolute nothingness. Logic commands 0 = 0 also nothing can come from nothingness, this already gives us the answer that existence is eternal.

Time, space and everything else that exists is united by this single similarity and we call it existence. We can easily prove that absolute relativity or disunity can not govern a universe and we also know that relativity has any meaning only when it is based on an absolute.
Finally existence can’t be anything other than God the alpha and the omega.


Above is my arguement.

Write down your own arguement and we shall debate if you wish.

Wassalam

[Rasputin]

Is God Real? A Question of Origins

Is God real? Surprisingly, this fundamental question is simplistic in nature. It is solved by asking another question, "Where did everything come from?" Where did space, time, matter, energy and information come from?
Theists have always acknowledged an Intelligent Designer as being the source of all things. Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is no Supreme Being. Prior to the 20th century, the majority of atheists held the universe to be eternal, without need of a Creator. However, laws such as thermodynamics and discoveries such as galactic motion and proton decay have led scientific authorities to this absolute certainty -- the universe at some point began! The implications of these scientific observations have caused atheists to seek out a mechanism by which the universe could have created and developed itself via random chance, without any Intelligent Director. The need for such a mechanism is foundational for atheists, because if they're unable to identify such a mechanism, they must either acknowledge the necessity of a Creator God or simply accept the fact that they cling to an unreasonable worldview. Enter the Big Bang theory, the related Inflation Universe theories, and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Is God Real? The Evolution Paradigm

Is God real? Not if you ask British Naturalist Charles Darwin. In 1859, Darwin purposed a mechanism by which evolutionary descent from a common ancestor may be possible without resorting to a Creator God. And so began the campaign to exclude God from science. The mechanism? Natural Selection. It has since been shown that Natural Selection is a conservative process, not a creative mechanism. Nevertheless, atheists cling enthusiastically to Neo-darwinian theory. In dramatic fashion, Evolution has become a "religion," where faith trumps empirical science.

H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester, UK, agrees, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg. 138.

Evolutionary theory seemed plausible in the 19th century, and even into the mid-20th century. At that time, our knowledge of molecular biology and genetics was very limited. Then, beginning in the 1950's, our knowledge of the microscopic world around us (and in us) began to grow by leaps and bounds. Today, our knowledge of external and internal biologic complexity, engineering, and design is overwhelming. With unprecedented discoveries in the fields of molecular biology, anatomy, biochemistry and genetics, it has become increasingly obvious that life is the result of Intelligent Design. The "simple" is no longer considered "simple" at all. For example, we can now view the intricate world of the "simple" bacterium, and realize that its propulsion device alone is more complex than the outboard motor on a fishing boat. Design Theory tells us that certain things, like this Bacterial Flagellum, are "irreducibly complex." Information Theory tells us that design is the result of intelligence. So, if the obvious design of living systems is the result of a mind, whose mind? God's mind!

Is God Real? The Humanist Campaign

Ask a Humanist, "Is God real?" and you will get a resounding "No!" What is a Humanist? A Humanist is one who adheres to the Humanist philosophy - really an atheistic "religion" built on 19th and 20th century foundations such as the Big Bang and Evolution. In 1933, the Humanists got together and put their doctrine on paper. The document was dubbed, "The Humanist Manifesto." The first plank of this 1st Manifesto states: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." The second plank states: "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." (The Humanists updated their Manifesto in the 1970's.) Generally, Humanists believe the Big Bang (or one of the related Inflation Universe Theories) caused the origin of the universe as we know it. Thereafter, Humanists hold to the notion that random, macro-evolutionary processes brought forth mankind - "from the goo through the zoo to you" over billions of years.

[Inquisitor]

Salam,
Looks like you do not wish to debate, just copy/paste articles.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is no Supreme Being.

There is no absolute lack of belief in human mind. We always believe in something. When one says that he does not believe that God exists, he actually means that he believes that God does not exist. The difference may not seem significant to most people, but there is an important difference!

[mike435]

Responding RedWine and those atheists who have gray identity



Here is my arguement, took me a while to write, I tried not to get into Shia and advanced Philosophy.

It is basic philosophy, If I enter Shia Philosophy, you and even many Shia members will have no clue.

Firstly I try to define non-existence or nothingness for you: (not sure if you know it or not)

Consider a box, in it a few items, now we remove those items; is there nothing in the box? Notice how we treat “nothing” it is almost as if we are taking it for another item!

As long as there is space in the box even if it is empty space we can not call it nothing. Empty space is something that we can imagine but nothingness is not imaginable. Therefore many great thinkers have said that nothingness is relative which means it is understood only in conjunction with other things.
For example you eat an apple, that apple no longer exists as it used to be, or you burn a piece of wood.

If we try to reduce the empty space inside the box we effectively move towards a point which has no dimensions and if we remove all empty space inside the box, the box will no longer exist. Reducing the empty space inside the box also means that the box itself is becoming smaller. Now imagine a point that has no dimensions which means it has zero length in x, y and z axis. Such a point can hold no objects in it.

But even that point has an existential value; non-existence is basically even to remove that point!

So to sum up, relative non-existence is a difference between two imagined or considered conditions. For example I remember that my hair was black but now it is white, so relative non-existence is a difference or contradiction that is discovered through the act of comparison while absolute non-existence is logically invalid and ambiguous because it has nothing to be identified with, it is the total lack of identity, in short it IS NOT.

I think I already told you what is logic an another thread.

Human logic is the most important faculty of human mind, in order for it to function it has to deal with at least two objects. Because one thing can not be judged with itself, a thing can only be judged or compared by another thing so comparison judgment and logic is all the same thing.

When comparing two objects two types of information can be discovered:

1- similarity
2- distinction

Distinction means disunity while similarity means unity.

Now we consider two extreme cases:

1- Two objects that are absolutely distinct.
2- Two objects that are absolutely similar.

The first condition is proven impossible in a few steps:

Firstly two objects that have nothing in common or are absolutely distinct can not have any relation to one another. In fact they are so different that they can not even interact with one another. In fact a careful analysis reveals that two absolutely distinct objects must be in fact existing and non-existing objects, because there are no two things in the whole universe that are in more contradiction than existence and non-existence. Thus two objects must be similar at least in one way in order to be compared.

Consider one who does the act of comparison as an object and the compared objects, in short witness and the witnessed or observer and the observed are also objects and entities that must have at least one similarity, otherwise there is no comparison.

As for the second condition, it is logically invalid because:

If we assume two objects that are absolutely similar and have not a single distinction then why they were numbered one and two in the very beginning? Indeed two absolutely similar objects must be in fact one.

As an example consider two absolutely similar balls that also occupy the same place and are formed by the same matter! This seems to be mad and indeed it is, so two objects must differ at least in one way in order to be differentiated.

This proves that all that exists is united by at least existence and disunited by human mind. But let’s keep it as a riddle for now and let us get back to the main question:

How can God create everything and he himself not be created?

I discussed the fundamentals of human logic and defined non-existence as the absolute lack of identity and existence as self-evidence and self-evident.

Now I ask you, can something come from absolute nothingness. Logic commands 0 = 0 also nothing can come from nothingness, this already gives us the answer that existence is eternal.

Time, space and everything else that exists is united by this single similarity and we call it existence. We can easily prove that absolute relativity or disunity can not govern a universe and we also know that relativity has any meaning only when it is based on an absolute.
Finally existence can’t be anything other than God the alpha and the omega.


Above is my arguement.

Write down your own arguement and we shall debate if you wish.

Wassalam

very intresting argumant most of it blew over my head but over all i enjoyed reading it

and as for redwine
somtimes i think he is bot that searches the net for articals
the cool thing thogh is that he will fined you an artical regarding the subject
anyways redwine is the heart of this forum i am willing to bet most conversations start becuse of his articals

so say rewine drink white wine lol

[Inquisitor]

very intresting argumant most of it blew over my head but over all i enjoyed reading it

Glad that you enjoyed it.

and as for redwine
somtimes i think he is bot that searches the net for articals
the cool thing thogh is that he will fined you an artical regarding the subject
anyways redwine is the heart of this forum i am willing to bet most conversations start becuse of his articals

so say rewine drink white wine lol

I was just looking for a challenger !

[mike435]

I was just looking for a challenger !

count me out i have done enogh of my wn chalanging of g-ds excistance

[Rasputin]

Atheists with Attitude

Great portents and disasters turn some minds to God and others away from him. When an unusually bright and long-tailed comet was tracked through the sky in the last two months of 1680, posters and sermons called on Christians to repent. A hen in Rome seemed to confirm that the Day of Judgment was near. On December 2nd, it made an extraordinarily loud cackle and produced an exceptionally large egg, on which could be seen a likeness of the comet, or so it was said. This added to the religious panic. But the comet also sparked a small triumph for rationalism. In the next few years, as Armageddon somehow failed to arrive, a stream of pamphlets across Europe and America argued that heavenly displays were purely natural phenomena. The skeptics won the day. From the eighteenth century onward, no respectable intellectual saw comets as direct messages from God—though there were still some fears that one might eventually hit the earth.

The felling of the World Trade Center in New York, on September 11, 2001, brought its share of religion. Two populist preachers, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, called it divine punishment (though both quickly withdrew their remarks), and not only the bereaved prayed for help. But September 11th and its aftershocks in Bali, Madrid, London, and elsewhere are more notable for causing an outbreak of militant atheism, at least on bookshelves. The terrorist attacks were carried out in the name of Islam, and they have been taken, by a string of best-selling books, to illustrate the fatal dangers of all religious faith.

The first of these books was “The End of Faith,” by Sam Harris, which was published in 2004 and was on the Times paperback best-seller list for thirty-three weeks. Then came “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” by Daniel Dennett, a philosopher at Tufts University, who has written popular books on the science of consciousness and on Darwin. Next was “The God Delusion,” by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and Britain’s preëminent science writer. Harris joined battle again last year with “Letter to a Christian Nation,” which renewed his attack on Christianity in particular. And now there is “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” (Twelve; $24.99), by Christopher Hitchens, which is both the most articulate and the angriest of the lot. Hitchens is a British-born writer who lives in Washington, D.C., and is a columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate. He thrives at the lectern, where his powers of rhetoric and recall enable him to entertain an audience, go too far, and almost get away with it. These gifts are amply reflected in “God Is Not Great.”

Hitchens is nothing if not provocative. Creationists are “yokels,” Pascal’s theology is “not far short of sordid,” the reasoning of the Christian writer C. S. Lewis is “so pathetic as to defy description,” Calvin was a “sadist and torturer and killer,” Buddhist sayings are “almost too easy to parody,” most Eastern spiritual discourse is “not even wrong,” Islam is “a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms,” Hanukkah is a “vapid and annoying holiday,” and the psalmist King David was an “unscrupulous bandit.”

It’s possible to wonder, indeed, where plain speaking ends and misanthropy begins: Hitchens says that the earth sometimes seems to him to be “a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations.” He certainly likes to adopt the tone of a bemused Martian envoy hammering out a report for headquarters. (We hear of “a showbiz woman bizarrely known as Madonna.”) In a curious rhetorical tic, Hitchens regularly refers to people whom he wishes to ridicule by their zoological class. Thus the followers of Muhammad are “mammals,” as is the prophet himself, and so are the seventeenth-century false messiah Sabbatai Zevi and St. Francis of Assisi; Japan’s wartime Emperor Hirohito is a “ridiculously overrated mammal,” and Kim Il Sung, the father of North Korea’s current dictator, is a “ludicrous mammal.” Hitchens is trying to say that these people are mere fallible mortals; but his way of saying it makes him come across as rather an odd fish.

He is also a fallible one. After rightly railing against female genital mutilation in Africa, which is an indigenous cultural practice with no very firm ties to any particular religion, Hitchens lunges at male circumcision. He claims that it is a medically dangerous procedure that has made countless lives miserable. This will come as news to the Jewish community, where male circumcision is universal, and where doctors, hypochondria, and overprotective mothers are not exactly unknown. Jews, Muslims, and others among the nearly one-third of the world’s male population who have been circumcised may be reassured by the World Health Organization’s recent announcement that it recommends male circumcision as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS.

Hitchens is on firmer ground as he traipses around the world on a tour of sectarian conflicts. He recounts how, a week before September 11th, a hypothetical question was put to him by Dennis Prager, an American talk-show host. Hitchens was asked to imagine himself in a foreign city at dusk, with a large group of men coming toward him. Would he feel safer, or less safe, if he were to learn that they were coming from a prayer meeting? With justified relish, the widely travelled Hitchens responds that he has had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad, and that, in each case, the answer would be a resounding “less safe.” He relates what he has seen or knows of warring factions of Protestants and Catholics in Ulster; Christians and Muslims in Beirut and in Bethlehem; Hindus and Muslims in Bombay; Roman Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbians, and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia; and Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians in Baghdad. In these cases and others, he argues, religion has exacerbated ethnic conflicts. As he puts it, “religion has been an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred.”

[Rasputin]

Separation of god & science

In January 2005 David Bell, a School Inspector, delivered a speech which was published in The Guardian about the rise in the number of religious schools in the UK. His comments have raised opposition by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in the UK. This interview aired on TV International. Bahram Soroush hosted the programme whilst Maryam Namazie was away.

Bahram Soroush: You may have heard statements by David Bell and also the response by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in the UK. They have said he is picking on Islamic schools. Do you think this is discrimination?

Azar Majedi: No I don't. Actually my position is to ban all religious schools. I think education must be separate from religion and the church. It is a positive move to investigate faith schools, from a children's rights point of view. It is of no surprise to me that they have found shortcomings in Islamic schools. I think it will probably be more or less the same with other religious schools. But perhaps other religious schools try to follow the national curriculum and standards more. Islamic schools are more into religious teachings than the regular curriculum.

So you feel that religious schools altogether across the board should be banned?

Yes. They must be banned and education must be separated from religion and the church. Universal laws and standards are the basis of a civil society that respects human rights and the equality of all the citizens. Separation of religion from the state and education is the basis of a secular society, where free thinking is respected and encouraged. Religion, in my opinion, is permeated with superstition and contradicts the scientific achievements of humanity. For all these reasons religious schools must be banned.

Furthermore, all religions are patriarchal and sexist. As it regards Islam, it is well-known for its sexist codes and rules. This is so because Islam has not historically been challenged or reformed, as it is the case with Christianity. The development of capitalism in the west resulted in significant social upheavals, of which the French revolution is the most influential. These upheavals challenged Christianity in different aspects and reduced its grip on the society and polished its most crude prejudices. When it comes to gender issues and sexual equality, religion has a negative effect.

Religious schools, not only do not promote sexual equality, they reinforce sexism and encourage a sexual division of labour and differential gender roles. Islamic schools are segregated and promote totally different roles for girls in society and restrict girls from many activities. Finally, these schools are more a place for indoctrination than scientific teachings. By allowing religious schools to function, we are discriminating against a section of society, and we are setting double standards.

In that case what do say to this argument that we should look after children's and pupils' religious needs and that is why we have faith schools?

I don't believe children have any religious needs. When it is talked about children's religious needs, it actually means their parents' need to indoctrinate their children. "Children have no religion"; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not. I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Somebody made a comment in the recent controversy that you have children who are in a religious family and when they go to school, they go to a religious school and they come back to a religious family. So 24 hours a day they are confronted by religion.

I think this is a very good and valid point. This refers to a sad reality of a life of indoctrination which is imposed on some children. I believe this must be stopped. This is wrong both from the child's point of view and society's point of view. To deprive a child of a normal happy life and normal education has become integrated in the society as a way of life. It is wrong to do that. They should be integrated with other children in the society as citizens, with children of all backgrounds. I understand that there are families with different religions and cultures.

However, these religions and cultures must not be imposed on the children. In societies today, children are exposed to all kinds of religions and cultures. They should be given the right of choice. Once they reach adulthood, they can choose. And in any circumstance, education must be secular and based on the latest scientific achievements. Children should be free from religious brain washing and teachings and preaching.

The effect of non-secular, religious and segregated education is very destructive on the society as a whole, and on our children's happy, normal life, and upbringing.

As we can see even a school inspector has come to recognise this fact. Of course this criticism is not radical enough (probably they have stronger criticisms themselves). It is carefully worded as not to "offend" any religious groups. But with a bit of insight one can recognise the severity of the problem. I am more concerned about the lot of these children. They are being deprived. Their basic rights are being violated. We cannot sit and watch. We should take action to defend the rights of these children to a happy, normal life, to safeguard their equal access to the world's scientific achievements, to free-thinking, and safeguard their integration into the society, with all other children.

In a sense these children are being sent to the religious schools by their parents and are being denied the same rights as the children who attend the mainstream schools. What is your view on that?

Yes that is true. Mansoor Hekmat has a very interesting and provoking statement regarding this issue and I have quoted it in many of my speeches and articles: "The child has no religion, tradition, and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices. It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery.

Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living conditions for children, their growth and development, and their active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those, who would want to physically violate a child according to their own culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious reaction of society."

I believe the position is very clear. We should have the interest of the child before us. Providing a happy, normal life for any child, and the creation of a harmonic society on the basis of secularism i.e. separation of religion from the state, are the right principle and the basis of a right and just position. Respect for multi-culturalism and cultural relativism leads to discrimination against some sections of the society, violations of human rights for some sections, double standards, and the creation of a disintegrated and segregated society, where people are put into different pigeon boxes and identified by their cultural or religious backgrounds, instead of as equal citizens.

Diversity is fine but creating boxes and stamping people's foreheads with their religion or their family's or community's religion is wrong. Furthermore, children are not given proper scientific education in these faith schools. They are given a one-sided education which is more based on superstition than science. Thus a normal life is denied from them.

We then come to the question of gender and sexual equality. Faith schools in general, and Islamic and Jewish schools in particular are based on sexist values and beliefs. In all religious schools there is a very definite defined gender role. Girls are considered as a whole different kind of human being than boys. There you have gender apartheid and segregation which is very discriminatory against girls and women. We have a long history of fighting for women's rights in Europe. Especially the gender roles have been challenged significantly in the past 30 years in Western Europe. The religious schools deny that and contradict society's achievements. They turn the clock backward. We should not let this happen. Bringing up children in religious schools is wrong and has to be banned.

[Rasputin]

Some might say fair enough, you want secular education, that children should be left alone until they reach the age of maturity, until they are 16, and then they can decide what religion to have or what not to have. But they also say, what about the rights of the parents? Don't they have any rights and responsibilities towards raising their children? Aren't you excluding them of their rights?

No, I am not excluding any one of their rights. Parents definitely have a responsibility towards their children. They also have some rights. These rights and responsibilities must be defined by the society as a set of universal laws. Parents are responsible to provide their children, in the framework of their means, with a happy, normal and safe life. They must provide their children with love, security and safety. But this does not mean that if a child is born in a poor or disadvantaged family, the society will leave the child to have only what the parents are capable of providing. Society has a duty toward the well being of the child. That is why there are internationally recognised charters and declarations to safeguard and protect children. Modern society has recognised the need for such laws.

That is why every civilised society has laws regarding obligatory education, prohibition of child labour, criminalising physical and sexual abuse of a child and so on. By passing such laws, the society has taken the matters in its own hand out of the parents' realm of rights. We are not living in a feudal system where the parents - actually the father - decide over the whole family's existence. For example, according to Islamic laws, a father or a grandfather can kill his children without being prosecuted. This is a law in some countries. Modern, civil society has abolished this right.

I want to say rights are not absolute and ahistorical. Each society must define these laws according to the well being of children and in light of children's interests. In my opinion, indoctrination of children is one of those so-called rights that must be taken away from parents. Education must be standardised and universal for every child in a given society.

What I am trying to say is that there is a responsibility by the society towards children as much as there is parents' responsibility towards children. That happy, normal and secure life that I was talking about is partly society's responsibility in all aspects: economically and education wise. The society will not leave it to the parents just because the children are born in a particular family to teach them whatever they want and brain wash them with superstition. There is actually a law and a limited safeguard that the society offers to children if the parents are abusive. Society would intervene and take the child's side.

I think abuse is understood as merely sexual or physical and verbal violence whereas indoctrination and brain washing of children with superstition and prejudgments must also be recognised as abuse. Inflicting or imposing religious or cultural customs upon children that hinder healthy physical and mental development must be considered as abuse. I consider child veiling as a serious violation of children rights. In the same token, sending children to religious schools is a serious violation of their rights.

It particularly affects the girls. Doesn't it?

It does. Religion by its nature and as an ideology is very much sexist and male chauvinist. Christianity has been challenged in the 18 and 19th century, from the French revolution to the transformation of the European society from a feudal society to a capitalist system. It has been pushed back in the society and is more or less behaving itself. Islam however, has not gone through the same process. Islam has never been dealt with like this in the societies that it was born in. Islam has never been challenged in this way, has never been pushed back from the society.

Moreover, for the past 3 decades a political movement has been born and developed, which takes its ideology and policy from Islam and is very reactionary, i.e. political Islam. This movement is not only religious but also political. We can see what political Islam is doing, gaining more and more inroads in western society as well. We know Islam's record, what Islam says; it is written black on white and we know how male chauvinistic and sexist it is. Gender apartheid is the basis of Islam. The veiling of children and many other abuses should be stopped. If you expose a girl or even a boy to that culture and education, you are actually depriving these children of a humane life, especially the girls. Islamic schools must be stopped because this gender discrimination is embedded in Islam.

[Rasputin]

Goddess not God

It seems to me that if there is a god, it must be a she-god, a goddess. By the way, if this kind of discussion offends your religious sensibilities, please stop reading right here.

We know that god created man in his (her) own image, or so we’re told by at least three major religions. This makes sense. When we create, we impart our own character to our creations. Why shouldn’t any other creator do the same? Therefore, assuming that we are created in god’s image, then we have two choices: god or goddess! There are no true hermaphrodites in humans, meaning one individual who can function as both female and male, so that choice is out. I will give four different perspectives as to why it’s goddess and not god.

One - the biologist’s perspective

You may know from your biology class that in humans two X chromosomes make a female (XX) and an X and a Y chromosome make a male (XY). Well, that’s only part of the story. Female is actually the main pathway for sexual development. And, it’s not just in humans. It’s in all species that have two sexes. The main pathway leads to female development, unless and internal (genetic), or external (temperature, ratio of male to female in the group, etc) signal triggers an alternate pathway leading to male or hermaphrodite development.

If you take away the Y chromosome from a fertilized XY cell (a genetic male), the embryo will become female. This actually does happen sometimes. It’s an XO female instead of an XX female. Incidentally, what happens if you take a way the X? The embryo can’t survive! There is so much information on the X chromosome that without the cell can not function. In effect, men are missing a huge chunk of genetic information and they have to compensate for it by making the genes on their single X chromosome work twice as hard (a process known as dosage compensation). Ladies you should pity us for our mistakes. We’re operating on less information than you have!

Interestingly, there are some amphibians that have a single sex: all female. They still have to get together and go through a sort of sexual mating dance (as sexual as a lizard can get) in order to self-fertilize their eggs, but no males are involved. There are no all male single sex species. Such thing is impossible. In fact, males seem to be an extra cost for the species. To give you an analogy, suppose you own a factory that makes a single car model. In order for your factory to make two models, you need to spend extra capital developing and maintaining the second model. So, why did nature/creator decide to make a second model (males)? Because, it allows better shuffling of the genes and hence gives the species better odds at surviving environmental changes and specially disease.

It’s the difference between shuffling a deck of cards with one hand versus two hands! And, theoretically it’s possible to make an organism out of an egg, but not a sperm. Thin of it this way: an egg is a computer, plus the software to run it. A sperm is just the software! So, to go back to the original in-the-image-of-god assumption, it would make more sense that a goddess created us in her own image. Hence, she gave more emphasis to the female sex in nature.

Two: the physicist’s perspective

The universe is huge. You already know that, but really, it’s HUGE! Yet despite its size, the universe possesses internal mechanisms for organization, which could only have originated from a female mind. For example, gravity! It’s an elegant solution to the problem of astronomical amounts of matter and energy existing in a practically infinite space. It brings things together, yet it gives them a random beauty.

If it was a male design, most likely there would be no gravity! Things would just fly a part and smash into each other. Or if he would have thought of gravity, you would have a small universe like a handyman’s garage. All stars would be lined up on a two dimensional grid around the walls, with each star having a set number of planets (say 300), and each planet would have a set number of moons (200), like one of those guys that has every tool that he will never use! And, the universe itself seems to be like a beautiful and intelligent lady.

Just when the astrophysicists think they have figured her out, she throws a curve ball. They thought they had figured out how gravity works but then the curve ball came along. The gravitational forces and the movement of stars didn’t exactly add up to what the equations predicted. So, now the astrophysicists are chasing after what they call “dark matter” and “dark energy” (or Nokhod Syiah). And, that brings me to another point, relativity. In the theory of relativity, everything is relative to the constant speed of light c (stands for celeritas). Women may drive fast. But, they get into one lane and go at a constant speed. Men weave in and out of traffic, slow down, speed up and never ask for direction. When energy or matter travel through space, they go where they’re supposed to go at a constant, put-the-pedal-to-the-metal speed. Why? Because gravity tells them! So, the physical characteristics of the universe point to the hands of a goddess at work.

Three: the naturalist’s perspective

The degree of variety in nature is truly amazing. There are bacteria, plants, animals, insects, fungi, and ...there are organisms that thrive in boiling water next to thermal vents in the deep ocean, and life forms that thrive in frozen arctic tundra! There is even an organism that can survive the vacuum of space. And supposedly, the creator made all of this in six days, and then rested. Well, a male creator would procrastinate for six day, watching the angels play football, soccer, basketball, etc, then on the seventh day he would hurriedly make one thing and that would be it! Again, this is assuming some degree of correlation between the characters of man and the creator. Men don’t remake the same thing a gazillion times, slightly different every time.

Women have patience enough to do something like that. Then there is the matter of garbage! Every ecosystem has an internal method for taking out the garbage. Whether it’s dung beetles, Tasmanian devils, Pihranas, or just plane old bacteria and fungi, someone is taking out the trash. That’s why these organisms are there. Remove them and the ecosystem dies. Now, when was the last time that the average man was eager to take out the trash!? The household of nature is organized by an efficient, experienced ‘Kadbanoo’ (if you don’t know what that means, google it). If it was a man, you’d still see left over dinosaur corpses lying everywhere.

There is also a practicality that does not ring true of the average man. Let’s face it, if a male god created us in his own image, he must possess the practicality of the average man! What would that look like? Take something like locomotion. How many modes of locomotion are there? There are two, four, six, eight, and multi-legged, but always an even number of legs. There is hopping, flying, slithering, swimming, and ...but all are wonderfully adapted to their environment and practical. The male version would probably be only one uniform way of movement, and then something like seven-legged plus one wing! Or, look at all the colors in nature. It’s known that women’s eyes have a higher capacity for detection of shades and hues than men’s eyes. The reason goes back to the whole two X chromosome thing, but I won’t get into it. Well, there are definitely shades in nature that men could not even differentiate, much less create. A male created nature would probably have been some uniform and horrendous shade of brown!

Four: the theologian’s perspective

Religion tells us that god created man and gave man certain rules and guidelines to live by. At times, angels were sent or prophets were used by the almighty to give guidance. Man being obstinate deviates from god’s words and sins. Then god wipes out everyone on earth except the few righteous by some horrible method. And, the righteous repopulate the earth. In some religions including the major three, this cycle has been repeated several times.

[Rasputin]

Ask yourself honestly, does that sound more like a man or a woman!? In the realm of human relationships, it seems that men screw up. Women wipe them out (via fire, court order, or right through the window). And if the men are smart enough to see the error of their ways, they are forgiven. Right or wrong, that seems to be the general format, a perfect mirror for what religion tells us is the history of the relationship between god and man. Plus, there is again the creativity part. The punishments dished out for man’s errors are varied. The world has been wiped out by water, fire, earthquakes, locust, etc. The goddess is creative in her punishments and she is patient! A creator with the male temperament would be very uniform. He would basically use one standard punishment every time. And, it would be something totally crazy, like using a massive vacuum cleaner to suck everyone into the sun! Also, he would not be so patient. The biblical account tells us that man has been punished after numerous chances to repent and return to the laws of the almighty. No male god would do that. The very fist time that man would have only slightly deviated would have been the beginning and the end of the story of creation. And as a final proof, when the creator finally has had it, all hell breaks loose! I remember when I was a kid; my mom was very patient with me. But, those few times that I made her mad enough to chase after me have been chiseled into my head. As the old adage goes, hell hath no fury like a woman’s wrath.

What’s the moral of the story? If you’re one of those people (man or woman) who don’t believe in women’s rights ...say you think it’s okay to arrest women and throw them in jail because they’re demanding equal rights. And, GODDESS forbid (dur az junetun) one day you croak (happens to the best of us), you better be careful. When you end up in front of the all mighty, SHE may not be all that merciful or companionate!

[jjbb]

MOSAHEBEH BA KHODA

در رويا ديدم که با خدا حرف ميزنم
او از من پرسید :آیا مایلی از من چیزی بپرسی؟
گفتم ....اگر وقت داشته باشید....

لبخندی زد و گفت: زمان برای من تا بی نهایت ادامه دارد چه پرسشی در ذهن تو برای من هست؟
پرسیدم: چه چیزی در رفتار انسان ها هست که شما را شگفت زده می کند؟

پاسخ داد:
آدم ها از بچه بودن خسته می شوند ...
عجله دارند بزرگ شوند و سپس.....
آرزو دارند دوباره به دوران کودکی باز گردند
سلامتی خود را در راه کسب ثروت از دست می دهند؛ سپس ثروت خود را در راه کسب سلامتی دوباره صرف می کنند...
چنان با هیجان به آینده فکر می کنند که از حال غافل می شوند
به طوری که نه در حال زندگی می کنند نه در آینده
آن ها طوری زندگی می کنند؛انگار هیچ وقت نمی میرند
و جوری می میرند ....انگار هیچ وقت زنده نبودند

ما برای لحظاتی سکوت کردیم


سپس من پرسیدم..
مانند یک پدر کدام درس زندگی را مایل هستی که فرزندانت بیاموزند؟
پاسخ داد: یاد بگیرند که نمیتوانند دیگران را مجبور کنند که دوستشان داشته باشند
ولی می توانند طوری رفتار کنند که مورد عشق و علاقه دیگران باشند
یاد بگیرند که خود را با دیگران مقایسه نکنند
یاد بگیرند ...دیگران را ببخشند با عادت کردن به بخشندگی
یاد بگیرند تنها چند ثانیه طول می کشد تا زخمی در قلب کسی که دوستش دارید ایجاد کنید ولی سال ها طول می کشد تا آن جراحت را التیام بخشید

یاد بگیرند یک انسان ثروتمند کسی نیست که دارایی زیادی دارد بلکه کسی هست که کمترین نیازوخواسته را دارد
یاد بگیرند کسانی هستند که آن ها را از صمیم قلب دوست دارند ولی نمیدانند چگونه احساس خود را بروز دهند
یاد بگیرند وبدانند ..دونفر می توانند به یک چیز نگاه کنند ولی برداشت آن ها متفاوت باشد
یاد بگیرند کافی نیست که تنها دیگران را ببخشند بلکه انسان ها باید قادر به بخشش و عفو خود نیز باشند


سپس من از خدا تشکر کردم و گفتم آیا چیز دیگری هم وجود دارد که مایل باشی فرزندانت بدانند؟
خداوند لبخندی زد و پاسخ داد: فقط این که بدانند من این جا و با آن ها هستم..........برای همیشه

[Dokhtar Bandari]

Quest For God

Swami Vivekananda

O'ver hill and dale and mountain range,
In temple, church, and mosque,
In Vedas, Bible, Al Koran
I had searched for Thee in vain.

Like a child in the wildest forest lost
I have cried and cried alone,
"Where art Thou gone, my God, my love?
The echo answered, "gone."


And days and nights and years then passed
A fire was in the brain,
I knew not when day changed in night
The heart seemed rent in twain.
I laid me down on Ganges's shore,
Exposed to sun and rain;
With burning tears I laid the dust
And wailed with waters' roar.


I called on all the holy names
Of every clime and creed.
"Show me the way, in mercy, ye
Great ones who have reached the goal."


Years then passed in bitter cry,
Each moment seemed an age,
Till one day midst my cries and groans
Some one seemed calling me.


A gentle soft and soothing voice
That said 'my son' 'my son',
That seemed to thrill in unison
With all the chords of my soul.


I stood on my feet and tried to find
The place the voice came from;
I searched and searched and turned to see
Round me, before, behind,
Again, again it seemed to speak
The voice divine to me.
In rapture all my soul was hushed,
Entranced, enthralled in bliss.


A flash illumined all my soul;
The heart of my heart opened wide.
O joy, O bliss, what do I find!
My love, my love you are here
And you are here, my love, my all!


And I was searching thee -
From all eternity you were there
Enthroned in majesty!
From that day forth, wherever I roam,
I feel Him standing by
O'ver hill and dale, high mount and vale,
Far far away and high.


The moon's soft light, the stars so bright,
The glorious orb of day,
He shines in them; His beauty - might -
Reflected lights are they.
The majestic morn, the melting eve,
The boundless billowing sea,
In nature's beauty, songs of birds,
I see through them - it is He.


When dire calamity seizes me,
The heart seems weak and faint,
All natures seems to crush me down,
With laws that never bend.
Meseems I hear Thee whispering sweet
My love, "I am near", "I am near".
My heart gets strong. With thee, my love,
A thousand deaths no fear.
Thou speakest in the mother's lay
Thous shuts the babies eye,
When innocent children laugh and play,
I see Thee standing by.


When holy friendship shakes the hand,
He stands between them too;
He pours the nectar in mother's kiss
And the baby's sweet "mama".
Thou wert my God with prophets old,
All creeds do come from Thee,
The Vedas, Bible, and Koran bold
Sing Thee in Harmony.


"Thou art," Thou art" the Soul of souls
In the rushing stream of life.
"Om tat sat om." Thou art my God,
My love, I am thine, I am thine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------