at least a level headed and sane reply from kayatta in Bantaba.
---------------------------------
Thank you Santafara for this remarkable piece. You have touched on some key issues that captured my interest. Because I am interested in the questions you raised about democracy, religion, secularism, and intellectualism; i have decided to provide my commentary on this important topic. I have to admit that I am no expert in any of these questions you raised in your paper. I am just a very, very curious person who happened to be intrigued by the same questions you raised.
Democracy and religion are not parallel concepts as you seem to suggest through out your paper. Democracy actually encompasses religion. A democratic platform is one that allows you to be what you want to be. If I may put it in Maslow's words, an individual may become what (s)he can become. An exercise of religious faith is a right that is guaranteed in a democracy, yet religions do not always guarantee the rights and freedoms that come with democracy. Many religious establishments and theocracies are known for extreme curtailing of human freedoms and progress. The Taliban in Afghanistan is a recent example of how religion could be used to systematically destroy the symbols of human civilization such as art, education,the rights of women, etc. Another instance to showcase that democracy and the practice of religion are not mutually exclusive is the fact that while communist USSR (a non-democratic system) persecuted religion during the Cold War era, democratic USA on the
other side of the Iron Curtain allowed all kinds of religions to flourish unfettered.
Although religion could be a pathway for salvation atleast for the believer, religion has also become an instrument of power and oppression. the political and economic power wielded by the clergy (religious leaders) both in the present and in the past is in many cases very questionable on the grounds of both justice and morality. The French Revolution which from a Marxian perspective was an uprising against the clergy,perhaps can be cited as an example of how the religious establishment has been used to unfairly grab political and economic resources at the espense of the ordinary people. Another example could be the American mega-churches that have become an empire of their own with hundreds of thousands of congregation at the top of which are the Creflo Dollars, the Benny Hinns and the Joyce Meyers who in the name of God have turned themselves into millionnaires occupying multiple homes and flying private jets at the expense of the ordinary people. These incidents cause a
significant amount of people to be apprehensive of organized religion.Many religious leaders, by claiming to represent God, have stifled scrutiny and transparency in their dealings on behalf of the people.
We have to agree that religion is very divisive. Perhaps mankind will never agree on the question of a single religion.Therefore, it becomes paramount to have a system of society that guarantees everyone to practice any religion they believe in. This kind of society is the democratic secular society that you seem to be very suspicious of. That kind of society is not contrary to the exercise of religion as you tried to indicate.
The term 'religious phobia' you used in describing the attitude of some, if not many intellectuals, towards religion is perhaps a little overboard. Many intellectuals, especially scientists, may object to conventional religious doctrine based on its inability to comform to objective verification. However, apart from the most fundamentalist of atheists, most people including the intellectuals and scientists you referred to agree that this world and human civilization would not be what it is without religion. To put it in Dr. Lenrie Peter's words again, "how would this world be like without these great religions?" To ignore the relevance of religion is to cut oneself from human history and civilization I believe. However, religion and religious leaders must recognize their position and scope in society. religious "people" must not try to attack proven scientific concepts and literaly force religious concepts into science classes like the advocates of 'Intelligent Design'
tried to do with the theory of Darwinian evolution. Since the advent of the scientific age, many religious people have either feared or look at with scorn scientific inventions which often surplant long-held religious believes like a 'flat world', a '6000 year-old earth', a 'geocentric universe', 'creationism', etc. However, when religion is pitted against science it simply turns of many away from religion. In my view, both religion and science need to accomodate each other. This effort must be led by both intellectual/scientists and religious scholars/leaders. It is a question of what Botha, the former apatheid president of South Africa told the white South African, "we must adapt or die".
You have asked " why the biggest democracies have unlimited fire power?". The answer is that the unlimited fire power is necessary to defend democracy. It is a security question. It is necessary to stop people like Hitler, slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and may be some day Ahmadenejad of Iran, who are bent on taking on the world.
I agree that there are many models of democracy as you argued, but unless you want to sound like Chairman Jammeh who repeatedly asked "what is democracy?", and insisted on everyone to show him democracy if they ever see one, you will agree that freedoms and choices pertinent to human nature and natural justice are the hallmarks of democracy. Where those freedoms and choices are scarce, democracy is withers; but where they are abundant, democracy flourishes.
---------------------------------
kay
SUNTOU TOURAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
My view on the two great concepts.
read along.hundreds of people sacrifice time and money for both concepts to improve the physical and spritutal needs of man. from missionary activities to political activist.some get killed along both ways. isn't it time humanity realise both ideas and concepts are here to stay.they cannot do without each other. we are all religious in some way. and we are all political in some others ways .
it is just my humble thoughts.
THE RELIGIOUS PHOBIA
It has become part of the culture of intellectuals and academics and those aspiring for status on that line to have deep phobia for religion. Students of knowledge and propagators of religion often encounter these intellectuals usually with very strong condemnation for religious people.
One wonders what the problem of all this phobia for religion is about? It seems that these haters of religion need to look within themselves and to analyse what is making them have the anti-religion line of The religious phobia
thinking. They aim to let us talk in language devoid of any religious sentiment, yet they will not hesitate to propagate the noble and all-perfect idea of democracy. They believe that democracy, can work without any religious side to it .I doubt that concept very much. I believe that the greatest achievement man can have is his/her salvation from hell. What does democracy tell us concerning how to achieve salvation? How many great proponents of democracy left us in this beautiful world? Some of them even get killed by their opponents.
People of religion hardly have any problem with democracy and secular ways. It is the so-called advocates of democracy who can't accept others. Consider the countless wars on others just for them to accept democracy. Why is force always been part of democracy? I also wonder why the biggest democratic countries have unlimited fire power that can obliterate rest of the animal kingdom. These fire powers are usually in the hands of the defenders of the now divine idea democracy.
They still tell us that religion is the cause of human rights violation and abject backwardness. Consider some simple questions: Was religion responsible for the genocide or holocaust of the Jews and genocide in Rwanda and Burundi? Of the wars on Iraq how much do you blame that on religion? Was it not based on the forces of democracy willed on a people whose culture and social values differ with democracy in all its facets? Again was it religion that was responsible for the usage of the chemical 'agent orange' on the Vietnamese people and the Burmese people?
The list can go on and on .But secular fundamentalists don't wish to answer those questions .Mostly they get entangled between corporate interest and promotion of democracy. The two are closely intertwined so much that their difference is blurred.
Any comment about what the Almighty says is looked at with disdain and apprehension. The struggle between man's interest and God's principle has been going on for a long time and that struggle will continue.
The two great ideas concerning love of God and the treatment of fellow human beings with respect and love are promoted both by religion and democracy. Where the two differ is on the issue of worship and morality. Belief and disbelief is a matter of personal choice for every human being. God never forces us to believe in him. He endowed us our free will. But he reminds us that the long journey will end some day and then we will have no choice but give him our account.
The vital issue that secular democrats highlight concerning religion is the different religious sects or groups existing and each group is calling to its ways. They doubt the usefulness of all the callers to God. They also tell us that the problem of the world today is extremism and religious intolerance .Who will question that statement?
No one will. But what they forget to tell us is that any extremism is bad and evil not just religious extremism.
All religions call to moderation.
It is true that there are different religious groups and each believing it is on the right path. But so is democracy. Democracy has many models. It is not just one big idea on a horizontal line where every thing is equal. Each country models its unique type of democracy. Do we have any problem with that? We even have monarchy in democratic countries, how unjust can that get? The callers to God give people an option. The important thing is for people to be free to choose which faith group to follow if they so wish or remain faithless if that’s what they want. The way we sit down and find out about our life should be the same way we analyse the choices available in religion as well. Callers to religion are no different from the callers to democracy; free speech, human rights, animal rights etc. The callers to a particular faith group mostly state why that religion or faith is the best .Just like how some countries keep reminding other countries why they should adopt
democracy and be friend with them.
Islam is based on an idea of submission to the will of the only one true God. Much has been said about how Muslims in the past used to force people to accept Islam. The big fallacy in that perception is that no one can force any one to submit his will to the will of God. No one can do that. The choice for any human being to accept following the one true God by submitting his/her will to God can never be done by force. The word Islam can also mean SURRENDER, SUBMISSIOM, and OBEDIENCE.
These acts must be done with sincerity, peace of mind, and free will. The acts of obeying God is to believe that God is the only supreme being worthy of obeying in totality, without any questions. The word Islam is usually referred to as peace. But the Arabic word peace means salaam not Islam. Islam appropriately means PEACE THAT ONE HAS INSIDE HIM THROUGH HIS RELATION WITH ALLAH.
A Muslim is someone who is practicing Islam. Islam just like democracy implores on believers to avoid blood shed and tyranny and to respect human rights. It also advises the wealthy to look after the poor. It explains to human beings how to attain salvation through the teachings in the final testament of God, the Quran. How many Muslims today follow Islam as was the practice by prophet of Islam Muhammed (SAW)? How many people born into a Muslim home and from Muslim families became overwhelmed by other ideas some of which run parallel to Islam? How many born Muslims practice cultural activities which is plainly unislamic? How many Muslims call to ideas strange to Muslims yet they advice us that it is for the best? So we can easily see that being born a Muslims is not the end of the matter. One has to be ready to submit his/her will to the commands of Allah. It cannot be done by force but by free will. Why shouldn't Muslims preach their religion or why shouldn't Christians
preach their faith? If people believe and know for certain what they have and know it is good and the best they tell others about it. That is what men/women of religion do, just like men/women of media, politics, science, sports etc do. If people are calling to God, why should that be a bad thing? Another key issue worth considering here is the difference between people of the same faith group. Some people have made changes into the original message of the prophets. They have allowed adulteration and alteration to creep into what was preferred and original. It has become the duty of those within the same faith group to expose the ones practicing a diluted or adulterated brand of their faith. Again no religious group is free from this problem, from Budihism, Islam, Hindusm, and Christianity etc. Just like in democracy, we have many brands and experts can sit and analyse which brand is the real one. So also is it with the experts on religion as well. The real brand in
Islam is following the Quran and the Sunnah or ways of the Prophet of Islam. Any other thing falls into bidah or innovation. Scholars and experts can easily state which group is way off the mark. They are easy to know. Like any other thing, what a human being is engrossed into, it is not easy to take him/her away from that. But people need reminding what must be done. Allah in the Quran told the prophet of Islam,'' your ummah or generation are the best raised up among mankind because you forbid the evil and advice towards good''. But even undertaking that simple advice can land one into all sorts of name calling and character assassination. That is the order of the day now. Should the callers to true Islam stop and succumb to the secularist? Of course No. The dilemma between secularist and religious adherent will soften up when we understand each other’s point of view and work in close harmony. We are not a threat to one another. We all need bits and pieces from each
other. May humanity see the goodness in the human family to love and follow God along the most blessed road to eternal peace and harmony
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
