Sen. Scott Brown

A couple of months ago I had written a harsh critique of the Democrats’ weak-kneed approach toward the health-care overhaul. I had held Obama and the Democratic leadership responsible for letting the national discourse degenerate to such levels that the American people had developed a distaste for the project itself.

While my criticism of democrats still holds true, it is time to give due credit and hail President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid for the extraordinary and monumental legislative victory that was accomplished yesterday.

However, as I reflect upon the developments over the last few months, one name deserves special mention and that is Sen. Scott Brown. The fact that we have a half-way decent health-care legislation is largely (and ironically) due to his electoral success.

Sen. Brown’s election punctured the much vaunted (though pathetically moribund) Democratic majority and set in motion a set of events that has now culminated in the passage of the health-care reform bill.  Until the election of Sen. Brown some Democratic senators had developed a rather large head and were conducting themselves as though they were a power unto themselves. They had managed to not only scuttle the public-option but also managed to extract special concessions and largess for their own states. In short, they had demanded and gotten their pound of flesh (or pork). The health-care bill therefore was tainted by raw political avarice and there seemed to be no good way to cleanse it.

Then came the good people of Massachusetts who gave us Sen. Scott Brown and all of a sudden the wind was taken from the Democrats’ sails. Bereft of this “oooh-so-sexy super-majority” the Democrats had to get serious and goal-oriented.  The question was how could they make lemonade out of the lemon they had been handed (or beaned with)?

The onus for progress shifted from the congress and to President Obama who courageously accepted the challenge. He spoke about it during the State of the Union address and asserted that Health-care reform was the right thing to do even if it is politically inconvenient or even lethal.

He met with Republicans and conducted a spirited defense of the Health-care reform. He organized and chaired a televised joint-session that lasted several hours to show the American public that the health-care bill, for all its defects, was not some sort of Red-Invasion, but rather a compilation of various ideas that are supported by both Democratic and Republican political ideologies. He therefore cast the rancour as bitter partisan bickering rather than substantive policy differences. He asked Republicans to not just accept the bill but participate in refining the things that needed refinement.

Obama's summit meeting with Republicans

However, the Republicans chose to take the position that any kind of participation was tantamount to treason and rather than participate in the correcting the bill where necessary, they chose to reject ALL of it. It was now apparent that although the Republicans had some legitimate misgivings about some aspects of the bill their chosen course of action was to SCRAP IT ALTOGETHER.

Since there was no Republican participation, the Democrats had to do it by themselves and with very little wiggle room. This is exactly why they chose to take the route where the House would approve the Senate bill as-is and then erase its offensive elements via a reconciliation bill. In other words, the Democrats managed to not only get health-care reform enacted, they also managed to excise the unsavory parts from it via reconciliation.

This is the nicest outcome possible and it came about because Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election. Had it not been for his electoral victory, the democrats would not have found it necessary to:

1. Speak with the Republicans and therefore also to us.
2. Conduct ferocious internal negotiations to ensure that a sufficient number of lawmakers supported it.
3. Design a reconciliation bill that would excise the unpleasant parts and thus make good on the promise to the house members who supported the reform bill contingent upon the passage of the reconciliation bill.

Of course, the process is not fully done. The Senate has yet to vote on the reconciliation bill and the Republicans are adamant on delaying the process and thus keeping alive the pernicious aspects of the current bill that they purport to object. It will take a bit of time to let the Republicans finish frothing at the mouth.

Anyway – my main point is that it is so ironical that the individual whose primary promise to his electorate was to be the 41st obstructionist, turned out to be the catalyst for this monumental piece of legislation. Thank you Sen. Brown.

The question I now have is: Now that the bill is enacted into law and the opportunity has come up to remove the objectionable elements, will at least the moderate faction of the Republican Senators rise to the occasion and ensure the passage of the reconciliation bill which aims to nullify the parts that they also object to? Or will the Republicans continue to go into prolonged epileptic seizures about “government takeover” and thus retain within the law, the exact list of items that they purport to find offensive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive because it promotes an Us vs. Them mentality.

Although I fully agree that Islamic militancy is not the only plague of our times, the subject of those posts were specifically Islamic terrorism / militancy and hence I did not feel the need to dilute the subject matter of my post by including references to its virulent brethren. However, this time I would like to show that fascism is NOT the sole preserve of any one religion or any one community. Religious chauvinism has a common formula that is adopted and exercised by different practitioners. In doing so, they tweak the superficial elements (color: Green v/s Saffron or name: Lashkar v/s Sena) – but the basic constructs are *exactly* the same.

Toward that end I have assembled a set of pictures and I invite you to join me in exploring the similarities.

Street Thuggery and violence against fellow-man.

Have you noticed that the Muslim Taliban and Hindu Taliban share an irrepressible  impulse to *impose* their world-view. They are not interested in persuading you – they are ONLY interested in coercing and subjugating you. Hence, they resort to violence and that too public violence – specifically as a tool for intimidation.

In the pictures above, the Hamas is expressing its political disagreement in a refined and composed manner. The Taliban are also conducting a spirited dialog with fellow-muslims with the assistance of a whip.

On the other side, you see the fine gentlemen of the MNS / Shiv-Sena  extending the same level of courtesy and decorum to their fellow-Indians.

As you can see , they share the same traits. After all, they are cousins!

Historical Desecration and Cultural Vandalism.

The Hindu and Muslim Taliban have an insatiable desire to demonstrate their piety through destruction. They are intoxicated by the notion that the only way to demonstrate their seriousness about any issue is to unleash barbaric attacks upon historical structures and monuments.

In keeping with this lofty tradition, the Taliban of Afghanistan destroyed the magnificent statues of Buddha which not only pre-date Afghanistan but also Islam itself.

The RSS, Bajrang Dal and its siblings did the same to the Babri Masjid. Their reasons were also the same. Both claimed that the presence of the monument was an affront to their religious sentiments and pride and they had to correct a historic wrong.

Churches torched, Statues destroyed to restore Hindu pride.

Recently, the Bajrang Dal has been discovering new depths by torching churches in Orissa and raping the nuns there (just like Muhammad-of-Ghazni). Their piety is so genuine and so intense that they do not have time to notice that even Ravan – the epitome of evil – did not inflict upon Sita what these Ram-devotees have inflicted upon the nuns in Orissa. Jai-Shri-Ram!!

Violence against women and their subjugation

Somehow, all religions eventually seem to agree on one thing – keeping the woman subjugated and repressed. The methods may vary superficially – but the end goal is ALWAYS the same. The muslims claim that Islamic tradition of Burqa “protects” the woman. They assert that mutilating the genitals of young girls (as young as 8-10 years) is necessary to keep them chaste and thus pure – just like good-ol’-Allah prescribed.

The Taliban beat up/behead women for not being inappropriately clad. The Ram-Sena beat up women for inappropriate conduct (pubbing / Valentines Day).

The self-appointed custodians of Hindu culture take a slightly different tack. They point to the dozens of female deities and insist that Hinduism *glorifies* the woman and puts her on a pedestal – to be revered. However, once they are done with their verbal diarrhea, they quickly return the the primary item on the agenda – i.e. sternly policing womens’ activities and unleashing humiliating retribution upon transgressors.

The gallant and intrepid warriors of the Ram-Sena physically attacked women. My my…such breathtaking valor!! And why, you ask? Well… of course, to er… keep them… umm- on a pedestal (which turns out to be a footstool).

The Shiv-Sena frowns upon the practice of expressing amorous sentiments on Valentines day. They find it “antithetical to Indian customs and traditions”. However, they seem to be unmoved by the plight of  women that are harassed, teased, molested and often brutalized on a daily basis in the trains, buses, streets and corners of the city. That does not seem to provoke their sense of outrage. But Valentines Day – hey we can’t have that!

Violence is a substitute for ideas.

The Holy Beards of the saffron and green brigades agree on yet another thing: If you have nothing substantive to say, then say it loudly, aggressively and accompany it with violence. See the shining stars of Hindutva and Islamiyat below. You could easily exchange the saffron and green flags and the substance would be *exactly* the same. As a matter of fact, “Jai-Shri-Ram” is just another way of saying “Allah-o-Akbar“.  “Lashkar-e-Tayebba” translates to “Army of God” . So does “Ram-Sena“!.  By pre-pending or appending ‘God’ to their wicked enterprise, they arrogate divine sanction for their depravity.

When in doubt, shout, scream and burn something.

Indoctrination & Corruption of Youth

Despite the claim that they are custodians of divine knowledge and celestial truths, the Hindu and Muslim Taliban seem to share the same anxieties about the longevity of their cause.

Hence, they enlist and recruit young and impressionable youth (even kids) and poison their minds from early on. Raised in an atmosphere of pious belligerence, the youth soon adopt the same corrupt mindset of the old and decaying demagogue.

Youth are needed to fill the ranks. And they need to be indoctrinated from early on. Hindu and Muslim fanatics display the same sensitivities about it.

Besides, someone has to do the back-breaking job of burning, rioting, raping and pillaging while the old fossils rest their aching backs.

Perpetrators and Propagandists

Both the Hindu and the Muslim Taliban purport to deriving their inspiration from their version of a “puritanical past”. They brandish an imaginary “golden period” either in history or mythology and stir up religious passions.

By claiming to promote divine mandates, they usurp legitimacy and use that to enslave the rest of us. Here are some common elements of their formula:

1. Talk loftily about a bygone era. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar invoke prophet Mohammed and Sallahuddin. The RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv-Sena and its ilk invoke Ram and Shivaji and Rana Pratap.
2. Glorify those periods. The muslims talk about the Caliphate. The Hindus talk about Ram-Rajya. The muslims talk about the heroism of their warriors who spread Islam right into Spain. The Hindus talk about Rana Pratap and Shivaji – which are undoubtedly true heroes – but the  main reason they co-opt these giants of history is to usurp their historical legacy. If Rana Pratap or Shivaji were to return to life, they would send this dastardly crew to the gallows.
3. Highlight current problems and blame someone else for it. Osama and Mullah Omar lament about the muslim world being in decay and blames the west and other Kafirs for everything. Shiv-sena laments about the plight of the Marathi person and blames outsiders (Non-Marathi residents of Mumbai). The RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal complains about the suppression of the Hindu person and blames it on the Muslims who have been pandered to by the Congress party.
4. Call to (violent) action: Having drawn up a romanticized version of the past and having shed tears about the current malaise and having found someone to pin the blame on, both the Hindu and Muslim Taliban issue stirring calls to action. And that action is:

The Afghan / Pakistani Taliban bans TV, music and enforces beards, Burqa. The Shiv-Sena and Ram-Sena demands a ban on Valentines day, couples holding hands…. The Bajrang Dal would like to ban Christianity itself…

On a concluding note:

The point of this post is that the Hindu right-wing organizations and the Muslim Taliban-esque organizations are two sides of the same coin.  We don’t have to choose one or the other. We can reject the whole currency as counterfeit. To be fair however, Hindu right-wing organizations, repugnant as they are, do not constitute the same level of threat to world politics as do Muslim organizations. This is simply because their scope  of operations is limited (so far) to India. However, this does not make their ideology any less pernicious or toxic. In my opinion, they represent two points on the same continuum.

In other words, if allowed to proceed unchecked and unmolested, Hindutva will grow to be just as menacing and blood-thirsty as the Islamic-Jihad because both share the same intellectual DNA.

Therefore, in my opinion, the best way for ordinary citizens to curtail their extremism is by criticizing them ruthlessly and making them a laughing stock. Let us mock and ridicule them so intensely and comprehensively that they become a political liability and thus never grow to attain the levels of infamy reached by Islamic militancy.

Osama Bin Shopping

Too sexy for my shirt!

Tagged: Bajrang Dal, Hindu, Hindutva, Islam, Ram Sena, religious extremism, RSS, Taliban, terrorist, VHP ]]> http://myminddroppings.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/hindu-and-muslim-taliban-are-first-cousins/feed/ 5 myminddroppings Religion is Poisonous Street-Violence Hindu and Muslim Taliban Destruction and Vandalism by Hindu and Muslim zealots Hindu violence in Orissa Hindu and Muslim Violence Against Women Hindu and Muslim propensity for Violence ndoctrinating impressionable youth Hindu & Muslim Taliban Propagandists Osama_Bin_Shoppin PramodMuthalik2 http://myminddroppings.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/the-thackereys-sewer-rats-of-mumbai/ http://myminddroppings.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/the-thackereys-sewer-rats-of-mumbai/#comments Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:34:25 +0000 myminddroppings http://myminddroppings.wordpress.com/?p=1022 ]]> When Osama Bin Laden spouts his venom, he insinuates to speak for all Muslims. We (rightly) get frustrated by the fact that mainstream muslims do not do enough to repudiate him and yet claim that he is not representative of them. Well… it seems that Osama Bin Laden is not the only vicious dog in the pen. There are others like the Thackerey-trio who have made a career of operating in the sewers and expounding their gutter minds in public.

Supreme Dick with his 2 Testicles

Most of the time I have been content with treating them with a quiet disdain because I knew that the primary purpose of their fulminations is cheap publicity and I did not want to contribute to their goal of being the subject of conversation.  However, it seems that they are no longer satisfied with being in the gutters and are discovering new depths in the nether-reaches of public discourse. What makes this intolerable is their penchant for indiscriminate violence and bloodshed. Of late, they seem to be showing self-righteous outrage at Indians immigrants being harassed in Australia while conveniently overlooking the fact that they are practicing the same xenophobia themselves.

This is THE time to rise and denounce these vermin. Every thinking person – and more to the point – every thinking ‘Marathi Manoos’ needs to criticize and marginalize this filth of the sewers that claims to speak in their name. So here I am – a Mumbaikar and a Maharashtrian – unequivocally rejecting and repudiating the venom spouted by Bal Thackerey, Raj Thackerey and Uddhav Thackerey!

Rooted in separatism.

The Shiv Sena (and its mutant progeny, the MNS) have always been exclusively rooted in separatism. It has ALWAYS been their approach to harness the hardships and difficulties of ordinary folks and re-cast it as an evil conspiracy of “outsiders” to subjugate them and to mis-appropriate their wealth.

Undoubtedly Mumbai’s glitter and razzmatazz is mesmerizing to most of its inhabitants. But, the ‘Marathi-manoos’ (Marathi-speaking person) is told that he has a “special entitlement” to the prosperity that Mumbai projects – simply due to the accident-of-fate of having been born into a Marathi-speaking family. Moreover, he is told that the only reason such prosperity eludes him is because of the “outsiders” who have flooded the place and deprived him of his “rightful” prosperity.

The character of Mumbai lies in Mumbaikars. No distinctions of language, caste or creed are needed or heeded.

Of course, the Thackereys NEVER carry the  burden of being sensible. So, it is immaterial that Mumbai is Mumbai because of its inhabitants who are from ALL corners of the country.  They ignore the fact that Marathi-speaking people have done nothing that non-marathi speaking people have not done in making Mumbai great. Its convenient for these paper-tigers to overlook the fact that Maharashtra is NOT a country and neither is Mumbai. The ONLY political entity that is relevant is INDIA and the only national identity that is pertinent is INDIAN. Dredging up  all this nonsense about Mumbai v/s “outsiders” is pure BULLSHIT.

When have the Thackereys shared ANY of their immense wealth for the betterment of the Marathi-manoos? They own extraordinary amounts of PRIME PROPERTY. Have they built high-caliber schools so that Marathi-kids have an advantage? Have they built vocational-guidance for the Marathi-youth? Have they done ANYTHING for the upliftment of the Marathi-manoos and his capabilities? No! But they are at the forefront to decry the fact that nothing was done. In doing so they have created the impression that the hardships that Marathi-speaking people face are somehow different and more tragic that the hardship that ANYONE ELSE faces. The technical term for this is ‘demagoguery’.  The dictionary defines it as a “leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power“.

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale did the same thing in Punjab when he demanded Khalistan. The Kashmiri separatists are doing the same thing when they call for a distinction to be made in terms of their national-identity. The Thackereys find themselves in august company.

Let me be clear – I am not indifferent or callous to the hardships of Marathi-speaking people. My point is that this hardship is NO different than the hardship of any other Indian or Mumbaikar. A more sensible approach would be be agitate against the powerful forces that keep the masses repressed (irrespective of linguisitic affiliations).  Instead, the Thackereys decided to vilify and torment the masses themselves.

Driven to publicity.

It would be reprehensible if the Thackereys actually believed all of their own bullshit. But it becomes even more repugnant when one sees that these are just empty slogans and pathetic attempts to get themselves in the news. After a brief stint in power, the Shiv Sena returned to political oblivion. They do not have a SINGLE good idea or a SINGLE program which would propel them to any political prominence. They have been repeated routed at the polls simply because they DO NOT have anything of value to offer. To counter this  political marginalization, they have whipped up this Mumbai-for-Marathis platform. Its the ONLY idea they have. In fact it is the BEST idea that has ever germinated in an otherwise barren mind.

All growl and no bite

Like any 3rd-rate political dynasty, the Shiv Sena imploded over succession issues. It revealed itself to be a paper tiger with lots of growl but no bite. Having being banished from the Thackerey enterprise, Raj Thackerey licked his wounds and struggled to find a foothold. Manifestly bankrupt in ideas, he formed the MNS (Maharastra Navnirman Sena) and resurrected  the old and tested wail of “Mumbai-for-Marathis”. This was an old slogan previously engineered by his uncle (Bal Thackerey) which brought him political prominence.  He took his show on the road and predictably garnered some press-attention. He soon noticed that the press attention is directly proportionate to the celebrities that he can attach scandal to.  This is when he directed his self-righteous indignation at Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and his family. Mr Bachchan is a MEGA-STAR and even reflected glory from him would be unimaginably more radiant than his current gloomy and dark days.

Gaining attention by fabricating scandal and attaching it to celebrities.

Meanwhile, the other testicle, Uddhav, was busy trying to get electoral success for the Shiv Sena – which ultimately eluded him (because he had nothing of value to offer to the electorate). This failure pushed the Sena further into political backwaters. This is when the old Thackerey gene for pointless indignation got activated. He climbed atop the shoulders of the Marathi-manoos and wailed about how the Marathi-manoos was being exploited. Evidently, the Thackerey gene is blind to irony.

Married to bigotry and violence

To demonstrate how much they cared about the Marathi-manoos, they launched a blood-n-fury campaign against “outsiders”. And pray who are these outsiders? Other Indians!

MNS and Shiv Sena mobs demonstrating their bravery by attacking ordinary citizens for the serious crime of not being born to a Marathi-speaking family.

The swine of the Shiv-Sena and MNS adopted the Taliban as their role models and unleashed mindless and brutal violence upon other Indians (non Marathis) who reside in Mumbai. Since they don’t have ideas, they make it up with thuggery. This is their idea of restoring the pride of the Marathi Manoos.

All publicity is good publicity

Some months ago, Mr. Sachin Tendulkar completed 20 scintillating years in test-cricket. He has been an icon of gamesmanship and holds an extraordinarily high stature. In keeping with his sagely temperament, Tendulkar repudiated the pettiness of the Shiv Sena mindset. What made it pertinent is that Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketing legend, a Mumbaikar and a Maharashtrian.

Thackerey saw another opportunity to get press-time through the reflected glow of a true hero – Mr. Sachin Tendulkar.  Since there is really no depth that the Shiv Sena will not descend to, Bal Thackerey himself took on the position of “rebuking” Tendulkar.

I want you to pause a moment and watch this in slow-motion so that you see and understand the stage-craft of a paper tiger.

Fart v/s Roar

The  goal was to assume importance and prominence by posturing as though he were “rebuking” Tendulkar. He stated that young master was not even born at the time of Maharashtra’s creation (as though his two testicles, Raj and Uddhav were). He also stated that Mr. Tendulkar was not aware of the 105 people who lost their lives in the struggle that culminated in keeping Mumbai within Maharashtra (as though Mr. Thackerey was personally present at that struggle and that he was among thousands who sacrificed their lives in getting India her freedom).

The important thing to note is NOT the flimsiness of Mr. Thackerey’s argument. The thing to note is how he accrues attention and legitimacy by attaching himself (or his supposed cause) to prominent people and thus basks in their reflected glow.

The Sena directs ire at others to seem self-important and self-righteous.

Recently the Thackereys have waxed apoplectic demanding that all non-Maharashtrians living in Mumbai leave. They have vandalized cinema theaters that have screen movies of Shah Rukh Khan. They have hurled invective at Aamir Khan and called them “anti-national”. This is not driven by substantive ideology. It is driven by the simple fact that it gets them attention and publicity. In their pathetic world-view, bad-publicity is better than no publicity. To that extent the Thackereys are a political equivalent of 3rd rate porn star who gains attention by flashing her undies. The only difference is that she has something to offer.

In conclusion

The Thackereys do not seem to notice that they are lighting their own pyres. Their quest for political prominence has been so craven that they have not only alienated Mumbaikars (Marathi and Non-marathi) but they have also effected a breach with their erstwhile electoral cousins (other fascist organisations and parties like the RSS, Hindu Mahasabha etc.). How long will it be before they immolate themselves?

Mr. Thackerey is not an unknown country bumpkin. He is a well-known political entity. His party actually won a majority in a state election once. He and his party can be a force for good if they choose. The problem is that they have NO IDEAS. NO PROGRAM. NO DIRECTION. And so, they languish at the rock-bottom. Instead of re-building the party, re-branding their message and making it appealing to the masses, they have chosen to fabricate a problem and raised hell over it. Since they cannot or will not pull themselves out of the gutter, they would like to drag the rest of us into it.

This is precisely the thrust of the Thackerey/Sena platform – to make the public discourse into a sewer. Once it becomes a sewer, the sewer rats will always hold an advantage.  We should treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Also See : Ram Sena – the Saffron Taliban

Pissed.Off@Obama.gov

Pissed_Off@Obama.Gov

Its been over a week since the Massachusetts election results  punctured the Democrats’ 60-vote majority and deflated the already anemic health-care initiative. That night I was deluged with various emotions ranging from anger to anxiety to frustration. It took me a couple of days to clearly grasp what I felt and pen it down.

The title of this post *precisely* conveys what I feel in a nutshell. I will discuss my reasons in the rest of this post.

But first I want to make a clarification: I am NOT a Democrat but I voted for Mr. Obama because I sincerely admire his capacity for intellectual discipline and his ability to inspire. So, when I express my displeasure, it is as a sincere supporter who would like to see him succeed and not as one of the numerous right-wing nut-jobs that seem to have acquired more prominence than they deserve.

Leadership MIA.

All of us saw Candidate Obama eloquently make his case to the American public. We saw him being unafraid to take on “delicate issues” and parse them adroitly so that they do not remain just “slogans”. He did not shy away from addressing the hateful ramblings of Jeremiah Wright. He did not allow his political opponents to get away with shallow (and vacuous) caricatures when they tried to paint him as naïve and un-prepared. He took on those allegations, stripped them bare, and revealed to us that these were just political histrionics and not substantive arguments (remember the red-phone political commercials? Or the “pals-around-with-our-enemies” blather?).  America responded to that candor and forthrightness because they saw LEADERSHIP rather than a craven submission to political formulations and gimmicks. Americans have serious problems and need serious people to build serious solutions and not just another crew of populist acrobats. Candidate Obama presented himself as such a person.

Alas, President Obama did not resemble such a person.

Townhall shout-fests: Politiccal Porn

Where was that leadership when the health-care reform was being discussed? Where was that willingness to take on mindless and hideous blabber of “death-panels”. Where was President Obama when his signature issue was being mauled by populist rhetoric from the right-wing lunatics? He maintained a “dignified distance” – preferring to let congressmen and congresswomen market the cause to their constituencies.

Obama commands far greater admiration and credibility from the American public and he should have been the primary driver. Regrettably, he chose to be the cheerleader rather than the star-player and thus ceded the game to the hooligans who reduced it to political pornography (remember the town-hall scream-fests? Tea-parties?).

He should have been front and center being the chief advocate and visible champion of the cause. He should have leveraged his personal appeal along with the stature of his office to make the idea of health-care reform a political imperative that would be disastrous to oppose. He should have made it onerous if not toxic for the Republicans to advocate against it. Admittedly, nothing would prevent Sarah Palin from talking dumbly about anything – but it should have been a political liability for the Republicans to give her a platform.

Mr. Obama should have led the cause rather than just shepherding the legislative process. That would have been leadership! But it was missing in action.

Demand the right to remain sick

As a result, vitriolic rancor assumed center-stage and the American public was put off by it. We were still hemorrhaging jobs and the economy was still crippled while the entire political spectrum was engaged in political mud-slinging. The average American,  besieged by economic anxieties, is bound to find this fistfight distasteful and lose interest in this project.

The debate over health-care overhaul had become non-existent and the project itself turned rancid!

Transparency – where art thou?

Candidate Obama seemed like a fresh start from the days of backroom deals made in the dark recesses of power. He not only vowed to have robust debate about health-care overhaul but he also promised to do it out in the open so that we – the American public – could see who supports it and why AND who opposes it and why.

He assured us that we would get to see first-hand who opposes it and what concessions are being asked for by whom and for what. Powerful forces would have to bear the burden of “public scrutiny” and thus be leashed if not neutered.

Honest leadership? Open Government??

Where was that fidelity to openness and transparency? To be honest, the only people who are openly stating their position are the Republicans who unabashedly and unreservedly stand in unison to reject ANY serious overhaul of the health-care system.

The Democrats, by contrast, seem to have numerous fissures and fractures within themselves and NOBODY KNOWS how these fissures are being cemented and what deals are being made. Would Sen. Bob Nelson of Nebraska be able to extract special exemptions for his state or Sen. Lieberman demand special exclusions if they had to make their case on C-Span? I doubt it. Sneaky deals are easy to make when your audience is yet another politician. But if the audience is the American public, its hard to demand the unreasonable without being savaged by the press / blogosphere.

In short, the Republicans managed to cast the whole health-care overhaul as some kind of sinister program to enslave the American public and the Democrats assisted them by conducting themselves as though they were on a clandestine mission to force-feed health-care to us.

Where transparency could have been the primary propellant, the Democrats chose opacity and it strangled them.

Majority – my ass!

The ENTIRE Democratic game-plan has been predicated on being the majority party. And not just any candy-assed, lily-livered  majority – but a *super-majority* ; commanding 60 senate seats. My…my… are’nt we just the cat’s whiskers??

Although they have had numbers on their side, they have operated with the fears and insecurities of a minority. They have acted as though they cannot negotiate from a position of power and win over political opponents and adversaries. They have conducted themselves as though they are besieged by forceful hordes and in doing so, they looked beleaguered and thus relinquished the stature of the majority party in the minds of the American people.

Democrats are besiged from within

When was the last time a party commanded such large majorities in both chambers of the Congress and still look bedraggled? They kept scrambling and scrounging for support from THEIR OWN PARTYMEN.

They seemed so petrified by the prospect of a filibuster that they were willing to make backroom deals and operate in the dark-of-night just to get their OWN PARTYMEN to agree on their signature issue. Far from being the baddest cat-in-the-alley, they looked like pathetic mice scurrying around trying to sneak cheese into their burrows.

Pardon me… but this is not what a majority party looks like or behaves like. A party’s majority must manifest in its conduct. They must exude and radiate confidence because it is a reflection of what a MAJORITY of Americans want. But no sir… not the Democrats!

Democrats besieged by their own insecurities

Even today, the Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate – but it would not seem that way if you look at how they conduct themselves. They look as though they have been surrounded – outgunned, outmaneuvered and outnumbered by the Republicans. If they cannot negotiate successfully with other Democrats, what chance is there that they will negotiate with Republicans. And if they cannot even win over Republicans then what chance is there that they will have any forceful effect on regimes like Iran or China.

What if the Democrats scoffed at the Republican filibuster threat? What if they *invited* the Republicans to filibuster. What if these endless ramblings were on C-Span? What if the press and blogosphere eviscerated the Republicans for the crap they spewed while filibustering? After all, if you let a politician speak for long enough, he/she will eventually make a hopeless ass of himself/herself. What if seeing a dozen or so geysers embarass themselves made other (moderate) Republicans lose their appetite for such obstructionism and negotiate seriously? After all, they are also up for re-elections? Perhaps their obstructionism could be made to count against them and their vacuous political posturing could be a millstone around their necks. This could persuade at least some Republicans to re-think their alliances with the most rabid of their partymen.

Sounds bold and radical? Not really! I believe that would be a bi-partisan result.

Instead, the Democrats chose to operate in isolation and made a spectacle of themselves. The threat of a filibuster made them wet their panties and they scurried around trying to avoid it by getting more and more insular. How much of a majority do the Democrats need? If you cannot get legislation passed despite having commanding control of the Executive and the Legislature, then perhaps politics is really not for you. You should go back to being “community-organizers”.

Speed is ALWAYS of the essence!

The Republicans are astute politicians and are able to harness people’s hardships and channel them toward a political end. They have ALWAYS attempted to stall and delay through one contrived controversy or another. The Obama-birthers, Tea-Party air-heads, Health-care lunatics have been useful surrogates – but the main goal has always been to delay and obstruct. Sen. Jim DeMint actually said:

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him”.

The political calculus is that if you fart loudly and pungently enough, everyone begins to dislike the elevator ride and wants out.

The Democrats should have understood this and moved swiftly. They wrangled and wrangled and finally got past some legislative hurdles – but in the process they lost public confidence/support. It was as though they went through the intense hardship of labor and delivered only a still-born.

One cannot and should not fault the Republicans. They did what they are expected to do (political obstructionism). The problem lies with Democrats who could not do what was expected of them (deliver).

The fault also DOES NOT lie with the electorate of Massachusetts. They have seen precious little coming from the Democrats who seem so intoxicated with the idea of a  Senate majority, that they forgot the people they purport to serve. The electorate responded by giving them a swift (and well-deserved) kick in the crotch.

So who bears the brunt?

As of now, the health-care overhaul seems to be too toxic to take forward. White-house officials seem to convey a principled affinity toward the cause – but there has been precious little by way of legislative progress on this front. It is therefore not inaccurate to characterize the health-care overhaul as being “on ice”.

As a result of this 30 million Americans will continue to be un-insured. The entire health-care industry will continue their practice of raping us with astronomical fees and premiums and odious exclusions like “pre-existing conditions”.

The Democratic Senators are fearful of losing their jobs. But there’s no reason to worry about them. They will find gainful employment elsewhere in the government or lobbying firms. They will have health-insurance even if they don’t have their current jobs.

Barack Obama may or may not be re-elected. Even if he does not, he will have a rewarding post-presidency career and it will certainly take care of his family’s health-insurance.

Can you or I say the same about us?

This is the reason why I’m pissed off at President Barack Obama and the Democrats. Your political immaturity and amateurishness has cost us health-care overhaul. I DO NOT blame the Republicans for this because I did not expect anything from them. I expected it from the Democrats.

And to that extent, you, Mr. President, have failed me. I still hope you will work toward that goal. I would still like to vote for you. I hope you want to earn it.

God - an all-knowing all-powerful Sky-Dude that almost no one truly believes in

I’m given to understand (from all the polls) that America is full of religious folks (around 90%) and that atheists are a small minority. Even atheist books and blogs seem to carry the mentality of an outnumbered (though valiant) minority.

But I wonder if this is indeed true or are our cultural parameters for ascertaining “belief” misleading?  I would like to posit that most people DO NOT actually believe in God although they sincerely profess to.  And that’s what I’d like to explore in this post.

So – let’s start! I doubt any sane person actually believes in God. Not you, not your spouse, not your parents, not your devout cousin who is also a priest. Not even the Pope believes in God!

What is God?

I think most people know what I mean by God but I am forced to clarify it because some folks have adopted a weasel-ass Deepak Chopra-esque technique of disguising God as some nameless, faceless energy-field that is infused in our cellular biology and saturates our consciousness with virtue and beauty…. blah blah.

Nonsense! No matter how well the faithful try to deflect scrutiny, the God they are droning on  about is the same one that is most widely perceived as an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient entity that made the universe and all that is in it. The God that has prescribed some virtues and forbidden some vices. The one that has a keen sense of justice, listens to the prayers of the faithful and intercedes on the behalf of the worthy. THAT is the GOD I’m talking about irrespective of the name ascribed to Him or the book that is brandished as His publication.

What is Belief?

Since there is no handy tool to measure and ascertain religious belief, we usually take a person’s word as the final arbiter.  In fact, societal norms of politeness dictate that such statements are beyond scrutiny  because it would trespass on the individual’s domain of private thought.  As a result, any statement that is prefixed with “I believe” builds a moat around itself which fends off any inquiry – let alone challenge.

I submit to you that this is how we get a whopping figure of 90% Americans saying they believe in God!

How about verifying “belief”?

Consider what would happen if the subject of “belief” were different.  For instance, what would happen if someone were to say that he/she “believed” that their bank were about to go under?  Or that the stock market were about to collapse?  For us to be convinced that they *actually believe* what they say they believe, would we not expect their conduct to reflect that belief? Would we not expect the person to withdraw all deposits or sell existing holdings if he/she truly believed that the investments were about to tank? Would we simply accept their claim to belief if their conduct were inconsistent with the stated belief?

(NOTE: It is possible to be mistaken in one’s belief. In other words, it is possible to believe that the stock market will crash even though it really does not. But if one were to truly believe it, one’s actions would definitely bear testimony to such a belief).

However, this is NOT the case with religious belief. When a person says he/she believes in God – that is taken purely at face-value even though his/her actions are incongruent with the stated belief. We seem to have convinced ourselves that “religious belief” is so sacrosanct that it ought not to be verified and thus the chasm between stated belief and actual action remains un-bridged.

Is it really true?

If 90% of us (as a society) believe in a God that watches over our lives, listens to our prayers, and occasionally intercedes on our behalf then our conduct must reflect that. But does it?

If prayer worked why would we need anything else?

When we are unwell, we go to the doctor and not the Church/Mosque/Temple. When we want to fix our car or home we go to the appropriate professional. When we seek justice, we turn to the courts and lawyers. When we seek security we call upon the police…..

Why is it that we turn to fellow-humans and appointed civil officials when we need something? Why do we not take our petitions directly to Big-Daddy-in-the-Sky and bypass the bureaucrats totally? We almost NEVER choose the path of exclusive prayer . Why?

Why would we need the law-enforcement establishment, the legal establishment, the military establishment, the governmental establishment if we were under the vigilant eyes of God Himself? In other words, if God has laid down some rules and can visit retribution upon those that flout it, why do we need to legislate or litigate at all?

Could it be that although we talk about God’s prowess, deep down we are unconvinced by it.  Could it be that although we get satisfaction and consolation (and possibly strength) from the notion that we are under the protective care of the Almighty, we cannot count on it? Could it be that it just feels nice to “believe”? Could it be that years of conditioning has ingrained the need for and a value of a security-blanket in us? Could it be that we are exhibiting the religious equivalent of  the Stockholm syndrome where captives (the flock) tend to view their captors (their faith) in a sympathetic light?

The Pope & Vatican do not believe in God!

Sermons from behind bullet-proof glass

The Pope never tires of telling us about the benign, beneficent and benevolent God whose power is infinite and whose wisdom is beyond reproach.  But he does not seem to notice the irony of using a bullet-proof glass while extolling God’s greatness.

If the Pope really believes that God is super-wise, ultra-benevolent and uber-powerful and if He really intercedes on behalf of the worthy and the deserving then why does the Pope need the services of a bullet-proof screen and the Swiss Guard?

Could a wise and all-knowing God not alert the Pope if danger were lurking nearby? Could an all-powerful God not halt a bullet in its path?  Better still, could a decent God with a sense of justice not inflict a fatal  heart-attack on a would-be assassin? But is the Pope or the Vatican counting on such a God or His alleged prowess?

The simple truth is that the Vatican is acutely aware that the alleged awesome might of God is no match for the simple physics of a firearm and that is why an enormous security infrastructure is in place to see what the Holy See cannot see.

Proof of the pudding!

Assassination attempt on the Pope

Some  may recall that on May 13 1981 an assassination attempt was made on Pope John Paul II  by Mehmet Ali Agca. Was the Pope taken to a Church? How about a Cathedral? A Chapel? No – as a matter of fact, he was rushed to a hospital where surgeons worked tirelessly to save his life.

What would the faithful have said if the Vatican authorities had decided to taken him to a church / cathedral / chapel instead of a hospital?  Would this not be the ultimate test of God and the power of prayer, faith and belief? But when push came to shove, the Vatican, despite its enormous reserve of “faith-capital”, decided to rely on the skill of scientifically-trained surgeons. What does this say about the Vatican’s professed “belief”?

Pope John Paul II recovering

After several days of recuperation, the Pope made his first public statement, where he gave credit for his hair-breadth escape to Our Lady of Fatima – saying that he believed that she guided the bullet away from his vital organs. Prof. Richard Dawkins has astutely observed in the The God Delusion, that if Our Lady of Fatima was in the business of guiding bullets, why not guide it away from the Pope’s person altogether? I would like to advance the same premise and ask if the Holy See would approve of his wounded self being left to the kind benevolence of Our Lady of Fatima instead of summoning the surgeons?

But of course, such a question is never asked. In fact, it would be terribly unseemly and cruel to ask such a thing. So, we just ignore the baseless-ness of the Pope’s stated belief and occupy our time gushing at his devotion.

So – what does all this mean?

This is *exactly* indicative of the norms of our discourse.  Stated beliefs are NEVER examined for veracity. Instead, they are treated with fawning indulgence.  Game, Set and Match to God!

Cultural conditioning inhibits robust self-inquiry

This is also what happens when ordinary folks reply to polls. We are raised in the cultural context of faith and belief. A big part of the belief-system is that faith itself should not be examined. In fact, faith is often brandished as a “certificate of character”. We are asked  to demonstrate faith by doing things  for God. We are NEVER asked (or encouraged) to validate faith itself by checking if God will return the courtesy.

We are so culturally conditioned to “belong” to one faith or another  that we NEVER call into question whether we truly HAVE faith in the things that we profess to. Since it is unseemly to inquire / validate whether we truly have faith, it becomes the default position. Is it surprising then that almost 90% of us claim to believe in a personal God?

True-believers and the soft-believers.

In my opinion, true believers are only those whose conduct is consistent with their stated belief in some meaningful way (just showing up at church on Sundays, singing in a group and handing out money does not count). Moreover, it should be clearly evident that their conduct would have been markedly different if they did not actually believe in the things that they say they believe in.

Faith-based initiative

For instance,  if a person believes in prayer and miracles, and does not turn to a doctor if he/she were to be afflicted with disease and only resorts to prayer then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be stupid – but that’s a different story.

Despite having a reasonable life, if you were to resort to Jihad as a religious duty at great cost and misery to yourself and your family (and of course, the infidels) then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be genocidal – but that’s a different story.

If you were to engage in suicide-bombing infidels on the belief that martyrdom is mandated by God and for which a reward of eternal carnal pleasures await you (72 virgins) then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be sexually-induced suicidal dementia  – but that’s a different story.

And here is my final point:

If you see the pattern in the examples above, “true-believers” are the same ones we ordinarily call “stupid”, “genocidal” , “demented”… – in short,  “extremists”. If it is true that extremists are a fringe-minority, then why are we inflating their ranks by lumping the non true-believers with them?

Of course, these non “true-believers” aren’t always innocent country bumpkins either. Indeed many of them are cynical manipulators that prey upon and profit from the emotional neediness of ordinary folks. We can call them fraudulent scoundrels and deal with them separately – but we certainly don’t need to call them “true-believers”.

My point is that the numbers of “true-believers” are extremely over-exaggerated.  The composition is more like:

1. There are some true-believers (stupid, suicidal, genocidal and demented people).
2. There are some fraudulent rascals (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, Satya Sai Baba…).
3. And there is a LARGE number of people that are simply part of a group they were born into and have not fully reasoned their way out of the contradictions of “belief” as yet.  Maybe many never will – but that is a different diagnosis than being a “true-believer”.

Since societal norms place a high value on being “a believer”,  and provide no encouragement to examine whether they “truly believe”,  a person typically does not hit an inflection point where he/she can break out of the normative state of  “being a believer“. Thus, an average Joe/Jane, born into an average family, goes through life being counted as a “believer” without really being one.

The framework of our discourse sanctifies such a shaky construct by drawing conclusions based upon it. If,  for the sake of argument, a poll were to examine the veracity of claims and then pencil them into the category of true-believers and others based on the broad outline above, we might find that atheists actually exceed the number of  “true-believers” (how many people are willing to forgo medical intervention in favor of prayer if they have an about-to-rupture appendix?).

Intellectual progress is a battle-of-ideas between those that court reason and those that court scripture / tradition.  Any critique of religious ideas seems to take the complexion of scorning a vast populace.  Sadly, the framework of our discourse, has enabled the religious right to not only claim a larger base, it has also also enabled them to be used as human-shields (because you cannot criticize a religious tenet without being told that you are hurting the sentiments of the multitude).

How dare you tell us what to do with your money. I'll protest by burnin my crotch!

I came across this article on the New York Times detailing the various heart-aches that regular Pakistanis are having about being told that there are conditions tied to the extraordinary aid (7.5 Billion dollars over 5 years) being doled out to them by the Kerry-Lugar bill. Apparently they feel entitled to an NSA (no-strings-attached) relationship worth $7.5B. They don’t just want your money. They want your love baby!

Now let’s see what their positions might be :

Is it “We don’t want your stinkin money”? No. Its more like “Actually we want – nay need – the money desperately to prop up the creaking infrastructure of our country which is crumbling under the weight of our own social, political, economic, military and religious ineptitude.  But we want it to be wrapped in velvet and sprinkled with rose-water and left deferentially at the doorstep. And don’t forget to thank us for being gracious for having accepted your infidel dollars”.

The NYT article goes on to quote Anwar Baig (an ex Pakistani Senator) who opines that Pakistan and US need to “rebuild lost trust” and the best way to rebuild trust is ….. drum roll here …. With money! Lots of it!! And without expecting anything in return. Baig goes on to say that “There is an impression that America is micro-managing everything”. And that is soooo not fair… plus it hurts our feelings.

I ask you….. what sort of a world do we live in where a hopelessly destitute pauper of a state gathers the temerity to set the terms for accepting alms?

The article then wafts over to two youths, a book-seller and an ex-police big-daddy. Their insightful comments / laments are:

Nobody likes America because “Friends don’t bomb friends”. America should learn the principles of friendship from Pakistan which has a stellar record in treating its citizens of East Pakistan with love and care. (Too bad that they still preferred to split and become Bangladesh).  Pakistan has shown true friendship when it continues to   harbor and nurture the Taliban and its ideological kin despite their sworn intent to bring harm to the US AND TO PAKISTAN!!

The US does not “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty”.  As you know, Pakistan respects India’s sovereignty when they provide sustenance to cross-border terrorists and Jihadis.  After all, its only spiritual aid. Pakistan’s writ over all of its sovereign territory is legendary – just check in the North-west Frontier for evidence. The US should not conduct air-raids and disrupt the tea-parties of the holy-beards while they are deeply engrossed in plotting ways to topple the Pakistani establishment and eventually bring harm to the US.

The suicide-bombs that regularly kill and maim innocent Pakistanis are NOT Taliban driven. All that is hogwash (er.. sorry camel wash).  The suicide-bombers are US-inspired and orchestrated. (That is the claim of a bookseller. With his sharp intellect and he should be writing books. I’m still waiting for a jewish conspiracy to show up. Its never the same without a Jewish machination thrown in for good measure).

Mr. Fazl-e-Haq – the former inspector general of the Pakistan prophesies that a revolution in Pakistan will occur by end of 2010 that would topple the current dispensation. This uprising is in response to endemic poverty and dispossession caused by the Pakistani establishment with its penchant for good governance.  He does not comment on whether the revolution will resolve the issue of endemic poverty and starvation but the great sage goes on to proclaim that the “the US is breathing its last“. And all this is *before* we hand over the money.

Is’nt this *exactly* the reason to have strict conditions and monitoring associated with any aid that is offered to Pakistan? Pakistan is notoriously corrupt and hopelessly untrustworthy. However, it sits at a geopolitical crossroad that is fast becoming cancerous (some would say that it is already a malignant tumor). It is inevitable that monies will need to be invested to ensure that it does not fall into an abyss. However, the very essence of “investment” lies in the fact that a return is to be expected.

The Pakistani street seems to presume that aid is an “entitlement”.  Perhaps they need to be told that international diplomacy is not “love”. The money will be placed on the dresser.  And don’t expect to be respected in the morning.

P.S. Just in case you think I am being condescending and scornful, let me clarify. I am! There are times when contempt is the only reasonable response. This is one of them.

Out, Out, Damned Atheists (Sep 11 09)

Its been a loooong while since I wrote on this blog (and yes… shame on me for that). I have little to offer by way of excuse or even an explanation.  It would be dishonest to say that I did not have time (although that would be partly true). But it would be more honest to say that nothing provoked me to sort out the threads of an argument and thus explore the truth content within them.

But that provocation has arrived. Albeit unexpectedly – but arrived nonetheless!

Lisa Miller recently wrote a Newsweek column raving about a book by Karen Armstrong called “The Case for God”. Frankly, the article is so full of bullshit that it took me a couple of days to ensure that my annoyance did not get in the way of my rebuttal.

Ms. Miller is effusive about Armstrong’s high-minded arguments in support of Religion and God.  However, it seemed to me that she was more thrilled at the prospect that a high-minded and noble-sounding answer had finally arisen to subdue (if not silence) the insolent atheists who ruthlessly flog religion and God.  It is NOT the strength of Ms. Armstrong’s arguments that seems to have swooned Miller but the tone of noble gallantry. In short, style over substance! I was particularly irritated by this segment :

Armstrong shows that for most of human history, “faith” and “reason” were not mutually exclusive and that even today all kinds people believe in a God that in no way resembles the God the atheists despise.

Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive? What kind of drivel is this?? Faith is precisely the abandonment of reason! When you believe in something without evidence and despite contrary evidence – that is *faith*. What else does it mean to say that one has faith in a magic amulet or in the claim that world was created in 6 days?

It is true that there are many religious people who are tethered to reason in almost every aspect of their life. This DOES NOT mean that reason and faith are compatible constructs. To the extent that these good folks adopt the un-substantiated  tenets of their religion, they have suspended the application of reason.  In other words, the space that faith occupies in people’s minds is the space that was created by evicting reason! Granted that the human mind is agile enough to accommodate differing outlooks – but it does so by actively exempting one set of ideas from the rigorous scrutiny of another set. This says more about the human ability to compartmentalize rather than the fundamental compatibility of reason and faith.

Miller then asserts that many (probably most) people believe in a God that does not resemble the one that atheists despise….  Could you please pass me a dollop of dim-wittedness to go with my idiotic?

Atheists DO NOT despise any god. They cannot! Mainly because they don’t believe in one!!

Could Ms. Miller (if she wanted) despise Santa Clause? How about the tooth-fairy?  Jinns anyone? Any takers for Zeus-hating? Why? Because she does not believe in their existence (I presume). The same goes for atheists!

Yes – its true that atheists express unabashed contempt for religious claims and they do so by shining a light on  the assertions that religions make about God, Heaven, Hell, morality and ethics.  Once examined, religion starts to look vapid and vacuous. And God starts to looks more and more like a capricious egotistical bully! That does not mean that atheists make him out to be one.  They are just reading from His own resume!

Karen Armstrong - The Case for God.

Ms. Miller seems to be really taken in by the soft humility of Ms. Armstrong’s approach. If you see Ms. Armstrong’s lecture at TED, you cannot help feel moved by her impassioned plea for compassion. However, the subject matter of her thesis is NOT her personal compassion – but the claim that world religions are primarily and exclusively about being compassionate!That claim is patently false!

Ms. Armstrong’s central theme in that (TED) lecture is:

• Religion is NOT what the scripture says. Instead it is what “she” has discovered it to be (i.e. universal compassion – AKA The Golden Rule)
• Religion has been “hijacked” by extremists and any interpretation of scripture that does not culminate in compassion is automatically the wrong one! (i.e. we must reject any analysis that does not yield a predetermined conclusion).
• Religion is NOT about orthodoxy – but about practice – a painstaking practice of compassion.
• Religion is NOT the biggest cause of violence but human greed and avarice is. Exhibit A: World Wars 1 & 2.  and soccer hooliganism.
• “True” religion insists on extending our common humanist impulses to one another within the group but more importantly across religious groups.

Now for my refutation/rebuttal:

Ms. Armstrong may wish that religion were all the things that she claims but that does not make it so.

To say that Religion is not what the scripture says is  a convenient way to dismiss all incriminating evidence and only allow a shred of supportive anecdotes.  Moreover,  is it not interesting that in support of her claim that religion is not about scripture, she cherry-picks quotes from the same scripture that she instructed us not to bring into the scope of examination.

Religion engenders intolerance and sanctifies bigotry.

Her broader claim is that Religion has been “hijacked”.  Hijacking is a case of subverting a project from its original intent. The Bible and the Koran and other “holy books” are unambiguous about their intent and their content. Does the concept of Jihad not exist in the Koran? How about the concept of the Kafir or the Infidel? Is jew-hatred not enshrined in the Koran?  Does the Bible not pronounce homosexuality as sexual-villainy? Is hell-fire not promised for dissent from the Bible? Do Hindu texts not endorse and enforce apartheid in the form of caste-divisions?

Dressing up religion as some kind of “refinement of the soul” is itself a hijacking of the discourse. Religion offers a spurious “upliftment of the soul” provided you are willing to surrender your intellect and your personal sovereignty. To  champion only one side of the bargain is to subvert the truth – i.e. hijacking it.

Its false to say that religion eschews orthodoxy. The problems we see in the world today are precisely conflicting orthodoxies. The orthodox Jews and the orthodox Muslims (and the orthodox Christians) believe that God in His infinite wisdom took time off from watching over the expanse of the universe  to bequeath a remote piece of arid land to one set of people (and not the other).   It is dishonest to say that these religions are striving for something transcendent. This kind of tribal pettiness is precisely what scripture declares as sacrosanct and strict adherence is the very essence of orthodoxy. Ms. Armstrong’s personal ethics and sensibilities may lift her beyond the lure of such trivialities but let us not assume that religion has made the same lofty leap.

It is true that humans are notoriously susceptible to greed and avarice. The main problem however, is that religion makes it possible to conceal such greed and transform it into some kind of  righteousness. In other words, a problem that could have been negotiable if it was driven by just naked greed, becomes intractable once it is sanctified by religious mandate. Who is going to give away East Jerusalem when your scripture commands you to lay claim to all of it? Who is going to share worshiping rights in Ayodhya when scripture and tradition declares that it is exclusive to one set of morons and not the other? You see… religion transforms a terrestrial quarrel into a celestial war.  Bravo!

Ms. Armstrong makes an impassioned plea that “true” religion is a high-minded pursuit of self-improvement through compassion – but she fails to observe that this “true” religion is a figment of her imagination.   I would not mind if she were to state that the world would be a better place * if religions were to* truly espouse compassion toward one and all. But her claim (lamentably) is that religions *truly do* espouse compassion for one and all – and that is being just too economical with the truth.

Religion is replete with mandates that not only allow the faithful to inflict harm on the infidel  but actually demand it of the faithful. To say that religion asks us to project compassion toward others – especially those outside the fold is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. If you were to remove from the Bible and the Koran, all the parts that are hurtful, hateful, xenophobic,  homophobic, misogynistic and violent,  these “holy books” could be reduced to a pamphlet.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that Ms. Armstrong has done precisely that! She has excised the unsavory and toxic elements of religion, over-amplified the good parts, dis-allowed incriminating evidence and thus made her (spurious) Case for God!

In conclusion, I do not begrudge Ms. Armstrong’s high-mindedness – I object to the fact that her arguments engage in falsification of the record. I object to the deliberate cherry-picking of  scripture that bolster her position and the brazen exemption of a large amount that is inconvenient. In short – I object to her intellectual dishonesty!

And most of all, I resent that Ms. Miller of Newsweek overlooks these wide chasms of tautology and paints Ms. Armstrong’s thesis as some kind of a soothing balm that is a welcome antidote to the harsh scrutiny unleashed by atheists. What else can you make of an article titled “Out! Out! Damned Atheists!”? Ms. Miller is welcome to be sappy about religion. She should just not expect to be considered an intellectual or even intelligent.

Jihad Fail (source: Fail Blog)

Its been a long while since I posted anything new here. I’ve been a bit occupied with things like earning a livlihood and hence been somewhat busy. I came across this pic on the Fail Blog .

As you can see, this devout dude is fulfilling his pledge to Allah. For this act of bravado of standing up to the Jews .. er .. juice, he will surely be rewarded by Allah. And if he were to actually kill/harm the juice – say the way 9/11 hijackers did to the Big Apple – he will be handed his quota of 72 virgins.

If you don’t believe me, see the postcard sent by Mohammed Atta (of 9/11 fame) showing us his randevouz with the first of his 72.

She’s HOT!

Celestial reward for Mohammed Atta. Allah-O-Akbar.

Can’t wait to see what Allah’s got in store for wonder-boy Osama

Moderates do not engage in Jihad but they also do not convincingly repudiate those that do.

I came across this cartoon and felt that this captured the essence of the conversation so far.

To avoid ambiguity, let me clarify that “Moderate Muslim” refers to people of Islamic faith who do not relate to the Jihadi sentiment and yet do precious little to denounce, deride and otherwise de-legitimize it.

In fact groups that purport to speak in the name of “enlightened and moderate Islam” often engage in verbal acrobatics to dress up Islam and attempt to stifle any examination of the Jihadi impulse. Nitwit Nastik had posted this excellent YouTube video in the comments section earlier. I’m re-posting it here. If you did not get a chance to check it out earlier, take a look at it now.

Here this Yunis dude is saying that:

• Less than 1% of muslims are violent crazed lunatics.
• Showing such violent outbursts tarnishes the balance 99%.
• The decision by US and UK media to not show the cartoons that lie at the heart of this mayhem is wise – so as to preserve ‘strategic engagement’ with “moderates”.

Frenzied rioting over danish cartoons

At no point however, does he take on the burden of explaining how a tiny minority could have the nerve to engage in such a scale of violent frenzy if they feared the censure of the balance 99%. And of course he completely side-steps Hitchens’ remark that this kind of violence was expressly supported by numerous mid-eastern governments.

This leads me to the following conclusions:

1. The hard-core Islamists are not as tiny a minority as apologists claim.
2. There is a wide segment of “Soft Jihadis” who sympathize with the “hard-core Jihadis” although they do not actually participate in their frenzied violence. This segment is probably wide enough to constitute a majority.
3. The balance “moderate/enlightened/secular muslims” are content with simply burying their heads in the sand.

It is this last segment (or shall we call it remnant) that Yunis wants us to pander to and not alienate.

Evidently Yunis has not buried his head in the sand. It is safely tucked up a specific area of the anatomy where the sun don’t shine.

But it's OK to bash jews, christians, hindus and other infidels

One of the pearls of received wisdom is that Muslim moderates should not be alienated in the process of confronting Islamic belligerence. I received a comment on an earlier article from Garreth where he has expressed this sentiment. I am including a quick excerpt below and you can see his full comments here and here .

“Will this (robust criticism of Islam) alienate the moderates and push more of them towards fundamentalism in the long run? Secondly, what exactly does forceful anti-jihadi discourse achieve?”

Garreth is certainly not an apologist for Islam but he questions whether it would be wiser to have a gentler approach toward moderates while continuing relentless attack on extremists. Firstly, I’d like to thank Garreth for this thought-provoking comment and then explore his question in this post.

What makes a moderate?

Exactly how do we determine if a person is a moderate or not? Is the distinguishing characteristic “violence committed”? Does that make all Al Qaeeda sympethizers who are yet to engage in violence, moderates? Just how steeped should a person be in his/her faith before he/she becomes an extremist? You notice that things start getting a bit nebulous once honest inquiry begins. In my opinion, a moderate is one who, by his/her actions, has created a demonstrable distance between himself/herself and the perpetrators of an incident which he/she purports to find offensive.

When 9/11 occurred, everyone had a clear opportunity to be opposed to Islamic terrorism. The same was the case when 7/7 subway bombings occurred in London. Ditto for Madrid, Bali, Beslan and Mumbai. If moderate muslims do not stridently denounce these acts and its perpetrators, they are being ambivalent about it. When innocent lives are at stake, such ambivalence assumes the complexion of callous disregard (if not subtle endorsement). In such a situation, we cannot, and should not, be saddled with the responsibility of distinguishing between a moderate and an extremist. We should denounce Islam for the wickedness it engenders and not feel any reservation on the grounds that it might alienate the moderates – because the moderates have already decided to withdraw from the issue and thus alienate themselves.

Moderate muslims' silence resembles apathy - or worse - a quiet endorsement

Let me draw a scenario: If after 9/11 (or 7/7 or Bali, or Mumbai or Madrid…), mosques from Bali to Baghdad were to condemn and excommunicate Osama bin Laden; If his effigy were to be burnt in Saudi Arabian mosques after Friday prayers; If the likenesses of Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Zawahiri….. were to be subjected to public indignities in Karachi then moderate muslims would have already marked themselves as starkly different from rabid Islamists. Friend and foe would be clearly distinguishable. Under such circumstances, we would be well advised to fine-tune our critique to focus only on foes (Jihadi extremists). But since the moderates themselves have not made any such distinction, how can we be expected to do it for them? It proceeds from this that if the moderates have not shown any palpable desire to be seen differently from the extremists, why should the commentary be modulated as though such a distinction exists?

Goal of forceful anti-jihadi discourse

Moving on to Garreth’s 2nd question: What does forceful anti-Jihadi discourse achieve?

We are conditioned to believe that religion (especially Islam) deserves special deference. This manifests in withholding criticism about Islamic tenets – no matter how grotesque they are. By offering undeserved respect we have become facilitators for an evil worldview.

The problems we see with the Islamic world are wrongly diagnosed as a conflict with the West. They are a conflict with modernity itself! To resolve this, retrograde ideas and ideologies must be exposed and eventually jettisoned. This cannot be done by treading lightly around these issues. Commentary and analysis must be brutally frank and stark. Undoubtedly some folks would be hurt – but not doing it causes even greater harm.

In my opinion, robust anti-Jihadi discourse breaks the taboo that keeps Islam safe in its sanctimonious cocoon from which it spews its toxic and venomous ideology.

Islamic bloodlust starts early

How can we call the Koran noble or divine and then deride those that follow its violent instructions? How can we denounce violent Jihad when the very same Jihad is expounded by the Koran and exemplified in the life of the Prophet Mohammed in the Hadith? How can we condemn beheading for apostasy when that is *precisely* what is commanded by the Koran and the Hadith? How can we ask muslims to end their visceral hatred for Jews when that hatred is *specifically* enshrined in Islamic scripture?

There is no need to treat Islam as a holy-cow. Holy-cows yield holy-bullshit – and in unholy amounts. Its time we called a spade a spade! It may be worrisome to some that this would “alienate” moderate muslims but I would hasten to point out that our current practice of pussy-footing around Koranic blood-lust has not tamed the genocidal Jihadi impulse either. In fact it has grown to sinister proportions. If you doubt this, read any Pakistani newspaper headlines highlighting how the Taliban is laying siege to Pakistan.

If you liked this, please also read: Fundamentalists v/s Moderates