Warning: A post without structure, theme or composition. Senseless unedited outpouring. Read at your own risk.
Blood, bullets, and deaths. Brutal violence. Screams. Helplessness. Despair. Pain. Courage.
A nation of a billion aspiring to be on the UN Security Council brought to its knees by just ten armed terrorists.
Hundreds died. Thousands wept. Millions panicked. A billion were terrorized.
The killers didn’t distinguish between rich and poor. They did distinguish between foreigners and Indians, Muslims and Jews.
If you think this was insanity, you’re part of the problem. If you think this is simply misguided Religion, you’re part of the problem. This is Evil disguised as Insanity. The gunmen were plucking the flowers and hoping to snatch the fruits of this religious tree. The tree was carefully planted and nurtured by those who were controlling the attackers via phones. Just like it was by those who organized a “rath yatra” 17 years ago.
No method in the madness? There was no method in the response. There was meticulous method in the act. Strategic and careful planning by the perpetrators. Helpless, unprepared, panicked response by India.
Voices of society, columnists, media, bloggers, politicians, and the public louder than the gunshots. The latter achieved their goal, the former didn’t. The latter acted, the former didn’t. The latter didn’t distinguish between the Taj and VT, the former did.
Today, it is Thanksgiving day in the United States. I offer my gratitude to the official and unofficial heroes of 26/11. They were people who acted with reason, in response to the madness around them. Some of them saved many lives. Some of them died. I refuse to believe that they died in vain. Their courage has inspired many people, especially young people. They are saviors of our sanity.
A year later. A fatwa against a patriotic song. The response? A gracious visit by the Home Minister to those issuing it. Zealots from one religion destroying another’s structure, causing mayhem. 17 years later, wounds that have not yet healed. Every religion that has a sizeable following in this “secular” nation has seriously injured it. One man sits in its parliament as the Leader of Opposition, another sits in Pakistan. Does it matter whether the roots of evil grow within the nation or outside it?
But this nation and its billion people continue to believe that religion is actually for the good, it is only misused by a few who are misguided. Continue to nurture the tree, prune it’s misguided branches and it will grow right back again.
Water the tree, nurture it, feed it. Don’t act surprised by the violence, the blood, and the deaths. Don’t blame the gunmen. It was their form of “prayer”, you see? Haven’t we all been taught not to question or doubt another’s form of religion or method of prayer? That is what “secularism” means, right?
Are you protesting about the attack on MLAs or media outlets? You shouldn’t because the attackers were “provoked”. Just like the 26/11 planners & gunmen. You can’t blame one and not the other. Don’t paint nude pictures or draw cartoons of holy figures. Anyone who’s religious sentiments have been provoked have a right to violence.
Want to get votes but have no clue about economics, national growth, infrastructural development, etc.? Religion is your ticket, baby. Either encourage one of them, or claim to embrace all of them. Use it wisely, for it wields enormous power over millions of human beings. They will kill each other for it. Just like they have done so many times, repeatedly.
The intelligentsia? Don’t worry. They will methodically criticize government shortcomings, police inefficiencies, lack of emergency response plans, lack of coordination between security forces, etc. Religion is sacred, it will remain untouched and unharmed, as it has for centuries, even after millions of human beings have been killed by this evil power.
After 26/11, there will be numerous other such dates. There have been many of them over decades, over centuries. Generations have passed, millions of people have died. Religion is the sole survivor. And it will continue to kill, until mankind discovers that Religion is Evil in disguise.
A few blog posts and conversations with friends have made me unquiet about the concept of Divinity: What is Divinity and what does it mean?
Background
My friend Asuph wrote about Divinity in 2004, when I had not even started blogging. He uses Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality from Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to describe what happens when we experience divinity. In my opinion, Pirsig’s Chautauqua is another example after Immanuel Kant, of how philosophizing can lead to general unintelligibility if you continue to seek metaphysical truths without getting your epistemology right. Leaving Pirsig aside, Asuph makes interesting observations and asks very pertinent questions.
The discourse has recently been over divinity in art and specifically, in music.
In Music Divine, Atul describes music that makes a direct connection to the divine, and pontificates about the role of divine intervention in the creation of such music and art in general. If you read my response, or are familiar with my blog, you can see that I disagree with the concept of divine intervention leading to the creation of anything, let alone artistic works. This idea essentially harks back to Evolution vs. Creationism at the metaphysical level.
Asuph then elucidates his take on divinity in music in the beautiful post – The Musical Language. He says that for him, the formless, nameless territory of divinity is ruled by music alone. If it were possible to consider an objective perspective on divinity, the question in my mind is: how do deaf (and further, blind) people experience divinity?
Sudheendra Kulkarni has touched upon a similar theme in a recent column: Why Sachin’s bat speaks to him. He uses the Sanskrit tanmay and talleen (self-immersed, engrossed) to describe the same things that Atul and Amit describe in their posts. Surprisingly, leaving his right-wing ideological background, Kulkarni turns to the work of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who architected the theory of “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience”, and calls it a “psychological theory of karma”, whatever that means.
Using An Epistemological Razor on Divinity
What, then, is Divinity? As Wikipedia correctly notes, it is a loosely-defined term. One should be extra-careful with loosely defined concepts since they are a slippery slope from an epistemological perspective. Einstein played on this slope when he wrote to Max Born that “He does not throw dice”, a phrase commonly paraphrased in other words.
Continuing with the Wikipedia entry: The root of the word means “God-like”. It is used to refer to powers or forces that are universal or transcend human capacities or to qualities of individuals who are considered to have a special relationship to the divine.
In essence, anything that appears to transcend human understanding in general appears divine to us. This is what remains after applying the razor.
Experiencing The Divine
Are divine experiences limited to the sense of sound as they seem to be for Asuph?
Does a newborn baby experience divinity in its mother’s bosom? Did quantum physics scientists experience divinity when they observed sub-atomic particles defying all known laws of the universe? Can divinity be experienced by touch? Can you feel it when you see something?
I believe the answer to all the above questions is a resounding yes, because by definition, what we think lies beyond human understanding is a subjective interpretation.
Other than the common divine musical experiences, I experienced divinity when I had my first sexual orgasm. I felt it when I saw the Andromeda Galaxy for the first time through a telescope. I felt it the first time I closed my eyes and dipped a finger into liquid mercury, awed at how such a metal element could remain in a stable state in nature. I lived in it for many days during my trip to the Himalayas.
What is Divinity?
Asuph correctly identifies divinity as a state of mind. And that is what it is. Like many other aspects of the human mind, there is a lot we still don’t understand about it. I suspect it has a lot to do with a state of mind where the amygdala and the temporal lobes of our brain are in harmony, but those are hypotheses best left to neural scientists. I’m comfortable knowing what we don’t know at present.
Becoming a spiritual guru is not as difficult as it may seem.
There are one or two guides already written on the web, but after my popular Rulebook for Indian TV News Producers, I thought I would write my own guide to becoming a Spiritual Guru.
- Appear knowledgeable about at least one ancient philosophy and way of life. Hinduism and Buddhism have been milked by numerous stalwarts already, so you might lose the race if you start afresh now. Try Mayan, Incan, or Aztec. Find your own niche if you want to be popular, just like in blogging.
- Appear to be calm and serene at all times. Vent out your frustrations and anger in private if necessary, never in public.
- Detach yourself from current affairs so that you appear to be living the myth that this world is a myth and you’re already “beyond” it.
- You may wisely make rare exceptions to #3 to take advantage of marketing opportunities in case of popular public concerns. Claim that your way of life can cure whatever the current malady that has caught the public unawares and is at the center of media attention – AIDS, bird flu, swine flu, etc.
- Veterans in the field have gone beyond #4 to claim cures for non-existent maladies, but you are advised not to follow in their footsteps unless you are already an acknowledged guru.
- Do not contradict or blatantly deny any scientific theories. Rather, subtly suggest that there are limits to what science can understand or achieve. If you appear to be against a scientific approach, you risk losing a lot of followers.
- Do not focus heavily on God. If your followers were God-obsessed, they would already be flocking to religious leaders. Those people are not your target market. Instead, focus on other abstract “stuff”, like cosmic events, natural elements (fire, water, etc.), meditation, yin-yang, energy, oneness, etc.
- Conduct workshops, seminars, retreats. Your followers have busy, stressful, professional lives. These breaks rejuvenate them, but the reason behind the rejuvenation would be your spiritual guidance, not the breaks themselves.
- Use the power of music. In your seminars and workshops, use hymns, chants, and mantras. Hypnotic, stress-relieving, soothing powers of music are well-known and are not the exclusive privilege of spirituality, but your followers don’t know that.
- Research conspiracy or doomsday theories and exploit one to your advantage. You can use the Polar Shift, Nostradamus’ predictions, 2012, or whatever. You need a tangible, real, FEAR of something to attract people to you. Of course, don’t tell them that fear is a real human emotion.
- Your doomsday event should be sufficiently far into the future but not too far. It should be towards the end of your followers lifetimes, or better still, right in the middle of their children’s lives. Before that time, you should be sufficiently rich to be sunbathing on your own private island.
- Embrace, integrate, mix concepts from various disciplines, philosophies, and civilizations, even if they were developed independently of each other in vastly different geographies and eras. Your predecessors have built a wealth of resources that you can reuse. By mixing them all up, you appear “holistic”, show that everything is “connected” to everything else, and that you are the sole person able to understand it “all”, whatever that means.
Do you have any other tips to share?
In the discussion surrounding my popular post Religion vs. Gender Equality & Feminism, there was a reference to religion and environmentalism. As if on cue, the Pope has now said:
“Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”
Atheists everywhere are up in arms with the headline “Pope blames atheists for global warming” all over the web. Read this post for a particularly incisive response. When the President of the National Secular Society labeled the Pope’s comments as inflated and self-serving, moderate voices asked whether this is a surprise and should be news in the first place.
If you wish, you can explore www.environmentalism.com and be surprised. I consider the final word on this topic to be of Michael Crichton, who argues that we need to take environmentalism out of the clutches of religion and bring it back to the scientific discipline:
“We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s.”
You read it right. There is no typo in the above quote.
A few days back, I was watching a children’s reality show on TV, Zee Saregamapa Little Champs. Young children sing and compete in this show, and there are two judges, one of whom is Ms. Alka Yagnik.
After one of the kids sung a song composed by Bappi Lahiri, Ms. Yagnik said she had brought a present from Mr. Lahiri for him. Can you imagine what it was?
It was a lemon and chillies bundle made of gold. She said it will help ward off evil spirits from the boy once she waves it around him. Another couple of minutes of air time was spent in close ups and a discussion of how it was 24-carat gold. Can you imagine my utter shock and disbelief? My instantaneous reaction was take it and SIUYA.
Millions of young impressionable minds all over India are passionately watching this reality show. The ratings of the participants matter personally to them. The judges are looked up at as role models who’ve made it big in the music industry. Is this what our role models are supposed to be teaching our children?
[For those not in the know, this is the most ubiquitous charm used in India to ward off the evil eye. See here for more information.]
TV shows like these are the rage on the Indian internet scene. There are countless sites with videos of episodes, innumerable forums where teenagers as well as adults are passionately discussing these shows and the progress of the contestants. If you think educated people with broadband connections who participate in such online activity would be immune to such superstitions, see this:
Of course, our politicians are not behind. This year, the national convention of the Congress in New Delhi sported this ‘good luck charm’. I thought I had seen it all, but then I saw this on a Send Gifts to India shopping site:
What is the harm in following silly old superstitions that harm nobody? Mr. Dabholkar, of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (ANS) says “The idea that there is no harm in following some superstition as long as it is not harmful is what is worrying", in this DNA article Dare to step on lime and green chillies?
The Maharashtra Eradication of Black Magic, Evil and Aghori Practices Bill is still languishing with no support group behind it. From political parties like BJP and Shiv Sena to each and every religious organization starting with the letter ‘H’ – there is vociferous opposition, blatant misinformation, and scare tactics used to sway gullible public opinion. The ANS activists are so frustrated that they are now writing letters to the ruling politicians in their own blood.
With the apathy of educated Indians towards such beliefs, and the mainstream culture embracing such superstitions, I think a lot more people will need to give their blood to this cause if it has any chance of success.
How do religions treat women? How do emancipated women treat religion? A sequence of events recently has made my mind unquiet over this subject. Nita asked if Hinduism was coming of age, with people performing the sacred ‘thread ceremony’ on their daughters. The BJP found itself trapped in the maze of confusion surrounding Hindutva. And Sarkozy said that women wearing burqas were not welcome in France, as it was more a sign of women’s subservience rather than religion. The Rational Fool hailed Sarkozy’s statement, while I and Etlamatey pondered about individual women’s rights in the comments.
Like I always do, I responded to my unquiet mind by thinking, scouring the net, and thinking some more. Here is a sampling of what I found:
- An American convert to Islam urges Muslims to fight against brutality of woman to preserve Islam’s image in the eyes of others
- A Hindu woman converted to Islam says Islam is not oppressive, unlike Hinduism
- A Hindu perspective explains how Abortion is Bad Karma
- Genocide of Women in Hinduism by Sita Agarwal
- Did the burqa bring about the ghunghat or the other way around? Read this.
- Did women have ‘fewer’ rights than men or ‘different’ in the context of Hinduism’s history? A heated debate ensued after Hindus started a campaign to change the content of sixth-grade school history textbooks in California.
- A Globe and Mail opinion piece discusses the reduction in church attendance among Canadian women and whether oppression of women by religious institutions is the main cause, while Tina disagrees in her blog post.
- How does Canadian society achieve gender equality rights enshrined in their Charter, which also protects the right to freedom of religion? The Star looks at the conflict of interests.
- Muslim-dominated Indonesia is a religious country where atheism is banned by law. Alarmed at the extent of oppression of women in their country, a group of Islamic and Christian leaders have released new manuscripts in an effort to use religion to achieve gender equality.
- BBC had an open debate on air on whether religion is an obstacle to gender equality. The extensive comments represent myriad opinions and differing perspectives on this issue. One example of a response to this debate is by Sally, who says that faith is an integral part of her, and suggests women work within their faiths for change.
In the above list, I have not listed any pro-atheist source, and strived to include Hinduism related articles. Referencing articles on Hinduism and gender equality or feminism is difficult for three reasons. One, the global discussion has centered on Islam, and the English-speaking Internet population is largely Christian.
Two, Hinduism is unique in its flexible and diverse interpretations. While all religions are intentionally scripted so as to offer multiple contradictory interpretations, Hinduism wins this ambiguity race by claiming to be ‘all-inclusive’. Devout religious folks from other religions do argue (as seen in the above examples) that the oppression of women is a misinterpretation and misuse of their ‘true’ religion. But Hindus can’t be surpassed in this respect: not only are there multiple contradictory interpretations of Hinduism, even these contradictions can be claimed to be embraced by it. I think it would be a safe bet to say that for every principle supposedly propounded by Hinduism, a contradictory principle can be found within Hinduism. People would not call me a mathematician if I did not follow mathematics, but they will call me a Hindu even if I did not follow it.
Third, for a religion that has existed for centuries, and is said to be flexible and evolving, it is impossible to differentiate religious practices from social customs and traditions. Do Hindu women wear the mangalsutra or bangles because of religion or tradition? Widow burning or sati is widely described in the world as a Hindu practice, but naturally, there are arguments and differing opinions about it.
For atheists like me, the issue is very simple. Religion has been used as an instrument of gender inequality, specifically, in the oppression of women. Removing religion from the picture removes religious and theological justifications for patriarchy, as Austin argues. Sally says that in the absence of religion, men will find other ways to oppress women, hence religion as such is not an obstacle. Indeed, many factors contribute to gender inequality, one of them being economic prosperity, as this chart shows.
However, there still exists a strong correlation between the extent of ‘organic atheism’ (as opposed to ‘coerced atheism’ like in communist countries) in a country and its overall gender equation. Both the 2004 and 2006 rankings of the Gender Empowerment Measure, which is part of the the UNDP’s Human Development Report, show that the top ten nations with the highest gender equality are all strongly organic atheistic nations, while the bottom ten are all highly religious countries with insignificant number of atheists. But, as Phil Zuckerman points out in the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, the causal relationship is in reverse: overall societal health causes widespread atheism, not the other way around.
It is impossible to argue against faith and belief, so I do not venture much into such debates. I prefer not challenging other people’s beliefs as long as they do not interfere with my life. What I find perplexing is how even emancipated women prefer to remain within their religious faiths and struggle against oppression, rather than choosing to discard religion? If faith and belief are important, and hence atheism and agnosticism are rejected, why are other forms of theism not popular?
In the end, I think I differ from Sarkozy: if women choose to be subservient, let them be. It is their right. Men should not trample over that right, though they can trample over such women, if they wish.
Update 30th June: A few significant articles I found since writing this post:
- Few public figures have taken this topic head on. Cherie Booth, wife of ex-PM Tony Blair, gave a speech almost two years ago: Religion no excuse for gender inequality. Like many other ‘feminists’ I mentioned, she however suggests using religion as a weapon in the fight for women’s rights.
- God is merciful, but only if you’re a man. An excellent piece in The Observer that asks the exact same questions I did, and offers the exact same answer Rational Fool did in the comments – Stockholm Syndrome.
- Wherever religion and its patriarchs rule, women’s lives are in danger, an Opinion piece.
- Why Women Need Freedom From Religion, from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
(All cartoons are from www.atheistcartoons.com)
A few weeks back, I read Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion say:
I want us to flinch when we hear of a ‘Christian child’ or a ‘Muslim child’. Small children are too young to know their views on life, ethics and the cosmos. We should no more speak of a Christian child than of a Keynesian child, a monetarist child or a Marxist child. Automatic labeling of children with the religion of their parents is not just presumptuous. It is a form of mental child abuse.
I’ve been thinking about this ever since, when I was asked the following questions by Ashok in comments on his Temple Matters post:
1) What is your opinion on children being taken to temples but not encouraged to ask why?
2) At what point do you think parents/elders should leave the decision of finding personal meaning in religion to the individual? What would you do with your children?
For a novice parent, these are profound questions, and it is important for any parent to think about these.
To start with, there is no doubt in my mind in fully agreeing with Dawkins. I was indoctrinated as a Hindu child, and chose atheism only in my teens, after I discovered and studied other philosophies. I did not have to go through a tenacious struggle myself, but I can well imagine different experiences for others. I would disagree with indoctrination of any kind. One must encourage one’s children to think for themselves, and choose what they think is right.
Given that religion is based on blind faith and not reason, it is hardly surprising that most religious parents blindly indoctrinate their children in what they themselves believe is the best for their children’s good. But what about atheists? Do atheists equally provide an open environment for their children to let them choose between religion and atheism?
Even as an atheist, I believe that I should not indoctrinate my child with atheistic principles. Even if I was raised as a Hindu, I will let my child attend a Christian convent school if it offers quality education, even though it may expose her to Christian traditions. I will let her grandparents take her to Hindu temples and let her see and have that experience. I will teach her not to discriminate among her friends based on religion if I find hints of any such thing. Over time, I would encourage her to think critically for herself.
So my response to Ashok’s questions is: #1 is pure indoctrination. Not encouraging children to ask questions is bad parenting. Not allowing them to, is mental child abuse, as Dawkins points out. #2: From the birth of the child. You can provide facts, information, and knowledge. But the decision of finding personal meaning in religion or elsewhere is a birthright of the child.
Of course, it’s not as simple as it sounds (who said rational parenting was easy?). When she asks me for the first time (whenever that is), “Dad, what is God”?, what will be my response? Will it be “Dear, God is a fictitious entity that many people believe in?” No, I suspect I will point at an idol somewhere and say “That is what people call God”, and thus side-step the question of his existence. If after a couple of years she asks “Dad, where can I find God?”, I’ll say “I don’t know dear. I haven’t found him yet. If you do, please let me know.” As she grows up, I will continue to encourage independent thinking. When she is mature enough to understand how different people can have different values, I can then explain what my values are. Well, I hope so! 
What are your thoughts?
Update: 11th Oct: I realize that comments section on this post can be too restricted a space for many people to espouse their ideas. I have also learnt that this is a universal topic for parents who think. Hence, as can be seen from the comments section below, this topic is now a meme, open to all.
It has already been taken up by The Rational Fool, La Vie Quotidienne, and AgelessBonding. Feel free to take up this meme on your own blog and write on this topic.
Cartoon Credits: David Horsey, via The Primate Diaries
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has gone on record in an interview with CNN to say:
“”You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate — poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera.
He said the disparity between the rich and poor in parts of the world causes instability and insecurity, but added that he was hopeful the relationship between the two was becoming clear.
In which world is Desmond Tutu living? There is poverty is many regions of the world from where terrorism doesn’t originate. There are many ways in which impoverished people have tackled their poverty – by immigrating to foreign shores or raising the overall economic development of their countries.
Terrorism in our age has been fueled by Osama, who is wealthy, and perpetrated by Islamists who are educated and well-to-do.
Africa is one of the poorest continents in the world – strife with poverty, disease, and ignorance. How many terrorists has it produced?
Forget the fact that terrorism needs an inordinate amount of wealth – those weapons and the educated sophistication cannot come without it – terrorism cannot thrive without an ideology behind it.
It is the fundamentalist, extremist, Islamist ideology that is fueling terrorism, not poverty. And Mr. Tutu, until leaders like you fail to recognize this, we will continue to suffer from it.
This image was taken, at Sagan’s suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood to the edges of our solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, when it captured this portrait of our world.
“We succeeded in taking that picture, and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you know, everyone you love, everyone you’ve ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds…
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity — in all this vastness — there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish this pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”
- Carl Sagan, commencement address delivered May 11, 1996.
This tribute is to hope and pray on behalf of the 2996 people who were killed on that fateful day. Many more have been killed before and after, all over this pale blue dot. Just like Voyager, we also need to turn and look back at man’s history on this fragile planet. Will we learn to cherish what we’ve got, or wipe ourselves out of existence?
Technorati Tags: terrorism, politics, iraq, 911, september 11, world trade center, news, war on terror, tribute, space, carl sagan
| Share this post : |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights. It is one of the foremost institutions, recognized worldwide, towards the fight for individual human rights.
Why is it called “Amnesty”? The definition of “Amnesty” is: “A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses”, or as a verb, “To grant a general pardon to.”
Think about it. Why should human rights originate from a pardon? Isn’t a right, a right? Does it have to be pardoned and then granted?
No. Human individual rights are inviolable, they cannot be ‘granted’ or ‘pardoned’. Then why is the world’s foremost human rights activist organization called “Amnesty”?
The answer, as often is the case, is economical, my friends. Amnesty International is funded by the Vatican. Remember Original Sin? According to the Christian doctrine, human rights can originate only if God ‘pardons’ man, hence the word “Amnesty”.
Isn’t this a logical paradox? Yes, it is. So what does Amnesty International think about abortion?
So far, it has been “neutral” on the topic. Now, someone inside Amnesty has had a rational light bulb moment, and they’ve decided that Amnesty will support abortion in cases of rape or incest. The Vatican is up in arms, as expected.
Human Rights and Catholicism? You must be joking! But, we aren’t. This is the truth. Sigh.
Share this post :
-
-
An Unquiet Mind by Mahendra Palsule is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
