Religious Believers in London
- This topic has 70 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How about making Her a mixed species hermaphrodite?
You mean like the Hindus? At least they make no bones about the fact that they worship idols and not some airy-fairy nebulous concept.
And many Hindus, as I say above, don’t worship anyone, just revere life, as atomists and materialists. With them, religion is as it was for the Romans: scrupulousness.
Of course, there are the violent and ignorant too, but they are not typical of the immense majority (though unfortunately they can cause tragedy and misery for those they have power over).
The only religion I believe has never terrorised anyone is Jainism.
And many Hindus, as I say above, don’t worship anyone, just revere life, as atomists and materialists. With them, religion is as it was for the Romans: scrupulousness.
Of course, there are the violent and ignorant too, but they are not typical of the immense majority
I suppose (irony alert) you mean that apart from the Hyderabad masacre of 1948 when up to 40,000 Muslims were killed by Hindus, the Neillie Masacre of nearly 4,000 muslims by Hindus in 1983, the 1984 Anti Sikh riots where 8,000 were killed and the 1,000s of others killed in Hindu masacres, the cattle herders who are regularly assasinated, and the ongoing growth or right wing Hindu nationalism, etc. etc. Hinduism is a religion to be admired as non violent.
The only religion I believe has never terrorised anyone is Jainism.
The Jain scholar Jinadattasuri wrote during a time of Muslim destruction of temples and persecution that “anybody engaged in a religious activity who was forced to fight and kill somebody would not lose any spiritual merit but instead attain deliverance“.
So the ususal “place in heaven offer” for the faithful who obey their spiritual leaders in order to keep the spiritual leaders in ongoing indolence.
Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defence can be justified,and they agree that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a legitimate duty. Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defence, there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers.
So again a religion which is essentially a load more hypocritical bollocks
“anybody engaged in a religious activity who was forced to fight and kill somebody would not lose any spiritual merit but instead attain deliverance“.
So the ususal “place in heaven offer” for the faithful who obey their spiritual leaders in order to keep the spiritual leaders in ongoing indolence.”
There again, this, apart from the support of class rule (joining national armies) does not necessarily imply Bijou’s conclusion.
Socialists too believe in self-defence.
I would say any group under threat of violence can legitimately act in self-defence.
We socialists refuse to join armies because they are tools of the bourgeoisie and modern war is not in our interest but the bourgeoisie’s.
But we are not pacifists. We want control of the armed forces to be taken by the workers so they can then use those forces to back up and enforce the bourgeoisie’s expropriation.
There are other cases. In history, before the modern state was consolidated: would Bijou not have fought as a Leveller? Although refusing the draft, and opposing the war on Germany and massacre of the people of Dresden, would he not, however, support the violence used by death-camp prisoners whilst escaping from Sobibor and Treblinka?
Perhaps faster growing at the moment are “secular” fantasies and their devotees unaffiliated to any religion. Religious fundamentalists are attracted to them, but many and maybe most who are converting to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology etc. and following internet gurus such as flatearthers, anti-evolutionists, UFOists etc. reject traditional religion as much as they reject science and history.
There again, this, apart from the support of class rule (joining national armies) does not necessarily imply Bijou’s conclusion.
Socialists too believe in self-defence.
So what you are saying is that what I have said, apart from the bit about class rule, doesn’t support my conclusion. So, just to be clear, seeing as I clearly used the example of Jain’s supporting class rule as the keystone of my argument, that what you are saying is that apart from the key piece of evidence I used, my evidence does not support my conclusion. This must mean that the key piece of evidence I used does, therefore, support my argument. I’ve got to say that in teerms of a counter argument, that’s not the strongest I’ve ever come across. If I were you I wouldn’t consider a carreer as a barrister.
Also I never said that I was a pacifist, I am quite happy to get stuck in if necessary, and to be honest probably sometimes when it’s probably not . My conclusion was based on countering your assertion that:
The only religion I believe has never terrorised anyone is Jainism.
It is clear that like all religions they are motiviated by ensuring that the best interests of their “spiritual leaders” and usually work in the interests of which ever section of the ruling class they think best placed to keep them in a position of power over their devotees. If you can explain to me how you can become a monarch with generals and soldiers without terrorising somebody I will be all ears. The conclusions I have come to stand, i.e. that your belief that the Jains have never terrorised anyone is wrong and also that the Jains, like all of the other religions I have encountered, are full of shit.
Bijou, you are right. I’ve been reading some more, and it does appear that Jains equate national military service with “self-defence”, which we know it is not.
But what do we know of a command structure in Jainism? Would a Jain be expected, were he a conscientious objector, to obey a Jain authority figure or structure telling him he should join the army? In such a case, then he is abrogating his own reason and principles in order to follow another’s commands. Then he would be at fault and so would Jainism itself. But were he to refuse nonetheless, then he would be true to Jain ahimsa (non-harm), unlike those browbeating him into obedience.
The duty of a socialist would be to explain to the Jain why national service is far from being self-defence, but is in fact murderous service for hire.
The duty of a socialist would be to explain to the Jain why national service is far from being self-defence, but is in fact murderous service for hire.
‘Duty’?
The role of the socialist is to encourage the Jain to do a lot of harm to the capitalist class by dispossessing them of the means of production and distribution,
‘peacefully if we may, violently if we must’.
I agree. But we can also explain that this need not be seen as harm. Any violence if necessary would be undertaken by those prepared for it. But on the whole, expropriation, whilst seen momentarily by the capitalists as harm, is in fact merely absorption of them into the human race, as for the workers too. In effect, not harm at all. This too could be explained to the Jain.
“In the interest of the rich, we must abolish private property.” (Oscar Wilde, paraphrased).
Most people are brainwashed into identifying with “the nation” and with thinking it is therefore “self-defence.” So Jains are likewise fooled. One would have to prove that Jainism itself holds “national defence” as a principle, independent of the current system of nation-states and of national armed forces.
Thailand is a nation-state that is a “Buddhist monarchy” and monks are drafted into the army. But what has that to do with Buddhism? What had the USSR to do with Marxism?
I really don’t care how the capitalist class, or religious apologists for restraint, which is actually supporting of the status quo, see it.
I do not have to prove anything other, than to point to the fact of them being followers and believers, as opposed to thinkers.
When the religious or political left cease to be ‘followers’ or ‘believers’, then they will not be so susceptible to that ‘brainwashing’ and the en masse actions and attrocities you wish to dissociate them from, but which htey are complicit in, will not be able to occur.
And many Hindus, as I say above, don’t worship anyone, just revere life,
Some information about the Hindu Caste System from a Hindu website:
The Hindu caste system is unique in the world, but resembles in some ways Plato’s ideal society of philosophers, warriors and commoners. A caste is a division of society based on occupation and family lineage. Hindu caste system recognized four distinct classes or divisions among people based on these criteria and enforced it through a rigid code of conduct that was specific to each class and rooted in the dharmashastras (law books) of the later Vedic period. The four main castes recognized by traditional Hindu society based primarily on hereditary occupation are mentioned below.
- Brahmins. They are the priestly class, who are entitled to study the Vedas, perform rites and rituals for themselves and for others and obliged to observe the sacraments. They are the middle men between gods and men. The act as temple priests and invoke gods on behalf of others. They are expected to show exemplary behavior and spend their lives in the pursuit of divine knowledge and preservation of the traditions. According to Manu, the law maker, a Brahmin was an incarnation of dharma (sacred tradition), born to serve and protect the dharma. He belonged to the excellent of the human race, endowed with intelligence and knowledge to attain Brahman. He was the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings. Whatever that existed in the world was the property of a Brahmana and he was entitled to all.
- Kshatriyas. They are the warrior class, who are commanded (by tradition) to protect the people, bestow gifts to the Brahmins, offer sacrifices to gods and ancestors, study the Vedas, dispense justice, and abstain themselves from sensual pleasures. Manu laid down that it was a king’s duty to protect his kingdom and his people. He had something in himself of the gods such Indra, Vayu, Yama, Surya, Varuna, Moon and Kubera. A king should not be despised even if he was an infant. His authority should not be questioned except when he ignored his duties in supporting and protecting Brahmins. The king had the right to punish, but he must be fair in his punishment. It was king’s responsibility to protect the caste system and the social order and lavish the priests with generous gifts at every opportunity.
- Vaisyas: They are the merchant and peasant classes, who are expected to tend cattle, offer sacrifices, study the Vedas, trade, lend money and cultivate the land. They had the right to perform and participate in certain Vedic rituals but they were not allowed to marry women of higher castes.
- Shudras : The are the labor class, whose only duty is to serve the other three castes. They were not required to observe any Vedic rituals or samskaras except a few. They were not allowed to study the Vedas or even hear the sacred chants. They were not allowed to eat food in the company of higher castes or marry their women.
- Chandalas : The lowest of the Shudras were called chandalas or the impure ones. They were treated as untouchables because of their gory religious practices, penchant for sacrifices, magical rites and unclean habits. In ancient times they were not allowed to enter a village or city during day time or walk in the same street where men of other castes walked. Even their shadow was considered impure and their very sight as a bad omen. So they lived mostly on the fringes of society, unknown and uncared for, following some esoteric religion of their own and working mostly in the graveyards and cremation grounds or as hunters, butchers and professional cleaners of human waste.
A clear demonstration of the class based nature of Hinduism
I presume our comrades in India have enough trouble dealing with the fallout of religion in the sub continent without members adding comfort to religious practices
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.